RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS PHYSICAL DISABILITY BOARD OF REVIEW

NAME:  XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX		CASE: PD-2017-05348 BRANCH OF SERVICE: NAVY	SEPARATION DATE: 20080502

SUMMARY OF CASE: Data extracted from the available evidence of record reflects this covered individual (CI) was an active duty E3, Aviation Ordnanceman, medically separated for “chronic left testicular pain” with a disability rating of 10%.

CI CONTENTION: “Condition is worsening.” 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 - 20071210	VARD - 20080715	
Condition	Code	Rating	Condition	Code	Rating	Exam	
Chronic Left Testicular Pain	8630	10%	Post-Operative Recurrent Hydroceles with Epididymis Removal, Chronic Testicular Pain	7899-7804	10%	20080618	
COMBINED RATING: 10%	COMBINED RATING OF ALL VA CONDITIONS: 40%	

ANALYSIS SUMMARY:

Chronic Left Testicular Pain. According to the service treatment record and MEB narrative summary (NARSUM), the CI began experiencing scrotal swelling in April 2006, and underwent a left hydrocelectomy, with subsequent epididymectomy and recurrent hydrocele incision and drainage in April 2007. He continued to have testicular pain, and no additional therapy short of surgical orchiectomy (reasonably declined) was recommended. The 31 August 2007 MEB NARSUM examination, 8 months prior to separation, noted complaints of left testicular and groin pain. Physical examination showed a normal gait and unremarkable abdominal findings with well-healed laparoscopic appendectomy scars. The left hemiscrotum revealed a well-healed scar, very tender left testicle, and somewhat indurated left spermatic cord.

At the 18 June 2008 VA Compensation and Pension (C&P) examination, 2 months after separation, the CI reported testicular pain with recurrent left hydroceles, left testicle enlargement, and epididymitis. The examiner noted a well-healed, tender, hypopigmented 5-cm

scar that did not adhere to underlying tissue. There was also tenderness over the upper portion of the testicle, but no significant swelling or other masses or deformity noted.

The panel directed attention to its rating recommendation based on the above evidence. The PEB rated the left testicular condition 10%, coded 8630 (ilio-inguinal nerve neuritis). The VA also rated the left testicular condition 10%, but analogously coded 7899-7804 (scars, superficial, painful on examination), based on the C&P examination, citing a painful scar. Panel members agreed that there was no VA rating higher than 10% under 8530 or related 8630 codes. There were no recurrent symptomatic infections requiring drainage/frequent hospitalization (greater than 2 times/year), and/or requiring continuous intensive management for any higher alternative rating under code 7525 (epididymo-orchitis, chronic only). There was therefore no higher than a 10% rating supported under any applicable VASRD code. 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 left testicular condition.

BOARD FINDINGS: In the matter of the left testicular condition and IAW VASRD §4.124a, 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-2017-05348

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.