IN THE CASE OF: BOARD DATE: 26 February 2014 DOCKET NUMBER: AR20140001346 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 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, the physical evaluation board fitness determination; and, if unfitting, 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 agreed that the applicant did appear to meet the inclusion criteria in the Terms of Reference of the MH Review Project with a possible disadvantage. 4. The SRP considered the criteria for diagnosis according to the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, Fourth Edition (DSM-IV), Text Revision, including the evidence for the stressor (criterion A); re-experiencing of the event (criterion B); persistent avoidance of stimuli associated with the trauma (criterion C); hyperarousal (criterion D); duration and onset (criterion E); and presence of clinically-significant distress or impairment in social, occupational or other important area of functioning (criterion F). 5. The SRP noted the evidence in the available records shows diagnoses of post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) and anxiety disorder, not otherwise specified (NOS), were rendered. However, the SRP agreed there was not a preponderance of the evidence to support a diagnosis of PTSD according to DSM-IV criteria. 6. The SRP noted the applicant's MH diagnosis was changed from PTSD to anxiety disorder because there was no verified DSM-IV PTSD criterion A stressor. The SRP also noted the VA-rated anxiety disorder, NOS, following receipt of this information. The SRP agreed the appropriate diagnosis was anxiety disorder, NOS. 7. The SRP considered whether any mental condition, regardless of specific diagnosis, was unfitting for continued military service. The SRP agreed the evidence of the record reflected minimal MH-related symptoms and the applicant's MH condition appeared well controlled on medication at the time of the applicant's retirement. 8. The SRP also noted the applicant attributed his inability to work to his non-MH conditions during the VA Compensation and Pension PTSD examination. The MH condition was permanently profiled, but not mentioned in the commander's statement, and there was no indication from the applicant's records that any MH condition significantly interfered with satisfactory duty performance at the time of the applicant's retirement. 9. After due deliberation in consideration of the preponderance of the evidence, the SRP concluded that the preponderance of evidence did not support an unfit determination for any MH disorder at the time of evaluation in the Integrated Disability Evaluation System or prior to separation and that VASRD, section 4.130 and section 4.129, do not apply. 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 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) AR20140001346 2 ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 1