IN THE CASE OF: BOARD DATE: 26 February 2014 DOCKET NUMBER: AR20140001339 THE BOARD CONSIDERED THE FOLLOWING EVIDENCE: 1. Application for correction of military records (with supporting documents provided, if any). 2. Military Personnel Records and advisory opinions (if any). THE APPLICANT'S REQUEST, STATEMENT, AND EVIDENCE: 1. The applicant requests a review of the military disability evaluation pertaining to a mental health (MH) condition. 2. The applicant states, in effect, the case file should be reviewed in accordance with the Secretary of Defense directive for a comprehensive review of members who were referred for a disability evaluation between 11 September 2001 and 30 April 2012 and whose MH diagnosis was changed during that process. 3. The applicant submitted an application through the Department of Defense (DOD) Physical Disability Board of Review (PDBR) MH Special Review Panel (SRP). CONSIDERATION OF EVIDENCE: 1. The PDBR SRP conducted a comprehensive review of the applicant’s submissions and records for evidence of inappropriate changes in the diagnosis of an MH condition during processing through the military disability system. 2. The DOD memorandum, dated 27 February 2013, directed the Service Secretaries to conduct a review of MH diagnoses for service members completing a disability evaluation process between 11 September 2001 and 30 April 2012 in order to determine if service members were disadvantaged by a changed diagnosis over the course of their physical disability process. 3. In the processing of this case, an advisory opinion was obtained from the PDBR SRP and the applicant was provided a copy. 4. The applicant did not respond to the advisory opinion. DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS: 1. After a comprehensive review of the applicant’s case, the SRP determined by unanimous vote that there should be no change of the applicant’s disability and retirement determination. 2. The SRP considered the appropriateness of changes in the MH diagnoses, whether the provisions of the Department of Veterans Affairs Schedule for Rating Disabilities (VASRD) Section 4.129 were applicable, and a disability rating recommendation in accordance with VASRD Section 4.130. 3. The SRP considered the evidence of the available records which showed a diagnosis of anxiety disorder was initially rendered by the narrative summary (NARSUM) examiner, which was based on the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) psychologist's examination. Once input was received from the applicant's treating service psychologist, the diagnosis of Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD) was applied by the NARSUM examiner, and adopted by the mental status examination (MES) and physical evaluation board (PEB). 4. The SRP determined therefore that no MH diagnoses were changed to the applicant's possible disadvantage in the disability evaluation process and that the applicant did not meet the inclusion criteria in the Terms of Reference of the MH Review Project. 5. The SRP noted that the VASRD Section 4.129 did not specify a diagnosis of PTSD, rather it stated "mental disorder due to a highly stressful event," and its application was not restricted to PTSD. Although neither the PEB nor the VA explicitly stated so, the SRP agreed that application of VASRD Section 4.129 was likely utilized in the applicant’s case. 6. The SRP concluded that sufficient evidence supported that a highly stressful event severe enough to bring about the Veteran's release from active military service did occur and that the application of VASRD Section 4.129 was appropriate. The SRP also deliberated if there was evidence for a VASRD Section 4.130 rating higher than 50 percent at the time of placement on Temporary Disability Retired List. 7. The SRP noted that the applicant's record showed no visits to the emergency room for MH treatment, no psychiatric hospitalization, no legal issues or incidents of domestic violence, and no impairment in thinking. The absence of any threshold symptoms of the next higher 70 percent rating, for example, impaired impulse control, special disorientation, obsessional rituals and neglect of personal appearance and hygiene was also considered. 8. The SRP agreed that occupational and social impairment, with deficiencies in most areas (such as work, school, family relations, judgment, thinking, or mood) was not reflected in the evidence, and therefore agreed that a rating higher than 50 percent was not supported. 9. After due deliberation in consideration of the preponderance of the evidence, the SRP concluded that there was insufficient cause to recommend a change in the PEB adjudication for the applicant's mental health condition. 10. The available evidence shows the SRP’s assessment should be accepted. BOARD VOTE: ________ ________ ________ GRANT FULL RELIEF ________ ________ ________ GRANT PARTIAL RELIEF ________ ________ ________ GRANT FORMAL HEARING ___X_____ ___X___ ___X___ DENY APPLICATION BOARD DETERMINATION/RECOMMENDATION: The evidence presented does not demonstrate the existence of a probable error or injustice. Therefore, the Board determined that the overall merits of this case are insufficient as a basis for correction of the records of the individual concerned. __________X_____________ CHAIRPERSON I certify that herein is recorded the true and complete record of the proceedings of the Army Board for Correction of Military Records in this case. ABCMR Record of Proceedings (cont) AR20040003532 3 ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 1 ABCMR Record of Proceedings (cont) AR20140001339 2 ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 1