RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
PHYSICAL DISABILITY BOARD OF REVIEW

NAME:  XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX	CASE:  PD-2017-05487
BRANCH OF SERVICE:  Army 	SEPARATION DATE:  20060922

SUMMARY OF CASE:  Data extracted from the available evidence of record reflects this covered individual (CI) was an active duty E5, Medical Specialist, medically separated for “bilateral high frequency sensorineural hearing loss” with a disability rating of 0%.  

CI CONTENTION:  “Review all conditions.”  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 - 20060829	VARD - 20061107	
Condition	Code	Rating	Condition	Code	Rating	Exam	
Bilateral High Frequency Sensorineural Hearing Loss	6100	0%	Bilateral Hearing Loss	6100	0%	20060920	
COMBINED RATING:  0%	COMBINED RATING OF ALL VA CONDITIONS:  10%	

ANALYSIS SUMMARY:  

Bilateral High Frequency Sensorineural Hearing Loss.  According to the service treatment record and MEB narrative summary (NARSUM), the CI’s hearing loss began in September 2005 following rifle range operations.  The 5 June 2006 MEB NARSUM examination, 3 months prior to separation, listed the CI’s chief complaint as “hearing loss,” and the final diagnosis was listed as “bilateral, severe, high-frequency sensorineural hearing loss.”  

At the 20 September 2006 VA Compensation and Pension (C&P) examination, 2 days before separation, the CI reported hearing loss and bilateral tinnitus (ringing in the ears).  An ear-focused physical examination was normal.  The results of his audiology evaluations are summarized in the chart below.

HEARING	EXAM	Audio: 9 Aug 2006
~1 Mo. Pre Sep	VA C&P:19 Sept 2006
~2 Mo. Post Sep	
LEFT EAR	Average Hearing Loss	35dB	38dB	
	Speech Discrimination	88%	100%	
	Table VI / VIa	II/I	I/I	
RIGHT EAR	Average Hearing  Loss	49dB	53dB	
	Speech Discrimination	88%	96%	
	Table VI / VIa	II/III	I/III	
§4.85 RATING	Table VII	0%	0%	
(Average hearing loss is the sum of pure tone thresholds at 1000, 2000, 3000, and 4000 Hz divided by four)

The panel directed attention to its rating recommendation based on the above evidence.  Both the PEB and VA rated the hearing loss condition 0%, coded 6100 (hearing loss), citing objective hearing test results.  The VASRD §4.85 rating schedule for hearing impairment is completely objective and derived from audiometric testing.  It is based on average pure tone thresholds across the hearing frequency ranges and accommodates for measured speech discrimination.  The charted results of the audiometric evidence in this case yields unequivocal 0% ratings for all sets of data, both pre and post separation.  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 bilateral hearing condition.

BOARD FINDINGS:  In the matter of the bilateral hearing condition and IAW VASRD §4.87, 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.  

ARXXXXXXXXXXX, XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX

Dear XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX

	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.