AR20200004558,

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.

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-2017-05826

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 E4, MLRS/HIMARS Crewman, medically separated for “chronic low back pain” with a disability rating of 10%. The PEB analogously coded the condition 5299-5243 (intervertebral disc syndrome [IVDS]), citing painful motion.
The VA also rated the LBP condition 10%, coded 5243, based on the Compensation and Pension examination, citing painful motion.  The panel agreed, based on the preponderance of evidence in the service treatment record and VA examinations proximate to separation, that there was no limitation of motion to support a higher rating than 10%. However, there was satisfactory evidence of painful motion (VASRD §4.59) to support a 10% rating, as recorded on the second MEB physical therapy and VA examinations. There was no muscle spasm or guarding severe enough to result in an abnormal gait or spinal contour, thus a higher 20% rating was not justified on this basis. There was no evidence of IVDS 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 pain.