Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 1 views

    PD201500692

    Uploaded by

    translationsbyignacio

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as RTF, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    PD201500692

    Uploaded by

    translationsbyignacio
    1 views3 pages

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    RTF, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as RTF, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as rtf, pdf, or txt
    1 views3 pages

    PD201500692

    Uploaded by

    translationsbyignacio

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as RTF, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as rtf, pdf, or txt
    You are on page 1of 3

    RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS

    PHYSICAL DISABILITY BOARD OF REVIEW

    NAME: XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX CASE: PD-2015-00692


    BRANCH OF SERVICE: ARMY SEPARATION DATE: 20080117

    SUMMARY OF CASE: Data extracted from the available evidence of record reflects that this
    covered individual (CI) was an active duty E4, Motor Transport Operator, medically separated for
    “mild to moderate sloping sensorineural hearing loss [SNHL]” with a disability rating of 0%.

    CI CONTENTION: The CI made no specific contention. 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 PEB, but determined 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. Furthermore, the panel’s authority is limited to assessing the
    fairness and accuracy of PEB rating determinations and recommending corrections, where
    appropriate. The panel’s assessment of the PEB rating determination is based on review of
    medical records and all available evidence for application of the Veterans Affairs Schedule for
    Rating Disabilities (VASRD) standards to the unfitting medical condition(s) at the time of
    separation. The panel has neither the role nor the authority to compensate for post-separation
    progression or complications of service-connected conditions. That role and authority is
    granted by Congress to the Department of Veterans Affairs, operating under a different set of
    laws. 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 the disability at the
    time of separation.

    RATING COMPARISON:
    SERVICE PEB - 20071102 VARD - 20080502
    Condition Code Rating Condition Code Rating Exam
    Bilateral Mild To Moderate Sloping SNHL 6100 0% Bilateral Hearing Loss 6100 0% 20070811
    COMBINED RATING: 0% COMBINED RATING OF ALL VA CONDITIONS: 0%

    ANALYSIS SUMMARY:

    Bilateral Mild to Moderate Sloping SNHL. According to the service treatment record (STR) and
    the Medical Evaluation Board (MEB) narrative summary (NARSUM), the CI entered the service
    with a normal audiogram in December 2002. Annual screening, along with further testing in
    May 2007, revealed bilateral SNHL. A May 2007 audiology evaluation, 8 months prior to
    separation, documented hearing in the left ear to be 25 decibels (dB), 30 dB, 50 dB, and 55 dB
    at the 1000, 2000, 3000, and 4000 frequencies with an average hearing loss of 40 dB. Hearing in
    the right ear was documented as 30 dB, 45 dB, 50 dB, and 55 dB at the same respective
    frequencies with an average hearing loss of 45 dB. Speech discrimination scores were 90% on
    the left and 100% on the right. Radiographic imaging in June 2007 did not identify an etiology.
    The MEB NARSUM and VA Compensation and Pension examinations were done concurrently on
    11 August 2007, 5 months prior to separation. The physical examination showed a normal light
    reflexes and normal internal tympanic membrane bilaterally with no evidence of effusion.
    Gross hearing was intact. Fine hearing was diminished bilaterally (inability to hear a watch
    ticking close to the ear). The hearing loss evaluation in evidence which the panel weighed in
    arriving at its rating recommendation, with documentation of additional ratable criteria, is
    summarized in the chart below.
    NARSUM/VA C&P
    HEARING EXAM MEB ~8 Mo. Pre Sep 5 mos pre-sep
    20070811
    Average Hearing Loss 40 dB dB
    LEFT EAR Speech Discrimination 90% %
    Table VI / VIa II / I /I
    Average Hearing Loss 45 dB dB
    RIGHT EAR Speech Discrimination 100% %
    Table VI / VIa I / II / I
    §4.85 RATING Table VII 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 the rating recommendation based on the above evidence. The
    PEB rated 0% for the hearing loss condition, coded 6100 (hearing loss). The VA identically rated
    and coded the hearing loss condition, based on the service May 2007 audiological evaluation 8
    months before separation. IAW the VASRD §4.85 (evaluation of hearing impairment) and the
    §4.87 rating schedule for hearing loss (Tables VI and VII), the impairments in evidence, based on
    pure tone threshold average and speech discrimination, supported a 0% rating. There was no
    evidence of more significant decrements in hearing loss for a higher rating. After due
    deliberation, considering all of the evidence and mindful of VASRD §4.3 (reasonable doubt), the
    panel concluded that there was insufficient cause to recommend a change in the PEB
    adjudication for the hearing loss condition.

    BOARD FINDINGS: In the matter of the hearing loss condition and IAW VASRD §4.85 and §4.87,
    the panel unanimously recommends no change in the PEB adjudication. There were no other
    conditions within the panel’s scope of review for consideration. The panel, therefore,
    recommends that there be no modification or re-characterization of the CI’s disability and
    separation determination.

    The following documentary evidence was considered:

    Exhibit A. DD Form 294, dated 20150603, w/atchs


    Exhibit B. Service Treatment Record
    Exhibit C. Department of Veterans Affairs Treatment Record
    AR20170006549, XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX

    Dear XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX:

    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

    You might also like