IN THE CASE OF: BOARD DATE: 14 April 2015 DOCKET NUMBER: AR20150003715 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 further states Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD) was not put on his narrative summary until the Physical Disability Board and the doctor who wrote his narrative summary stated PTSD was not important and the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) will address PTSD. 4. 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 to the applicant's disability and retirement determination. 2. The SRP reviewed the records for evidence of inappropriate changes in diagnosis of the applicant's MH condition during processing through the Disability Evaluation System (DES). The evidence of the available records shows the diagnosis of anxiety disorder, not otherwise specified (NOS) as the only diagnosis rendered during DES processing. The SRP agreed there were no changes in diagnoses. Therefore, the applicant did not meet the inclusion criteria in the Terms of Reference of the MH Review Project. 3. The SRP acknowledged the VA compensation & pension examiner’s assessment of PTSD and noted the applicant endorsed more symptoms than he had previously reported. The SRP undertook a careful review of the record in evidence to determine if the preponderance of evidence supported a diagnosis of PTSD. Although the examiner indicated the applicant had feeling of detachment or estrangement from others, this was not recorded or noted in any of the available treatment record (Criterion C). 4. The SRP reviewed the therapist records that recorded the diagnosis of PTSD; however, the documented symptoms were not sufficient enough to support the diagnosis. The recorded symptoms were consistent with symptoms commonly associated with Traumatic Brain Injury (TBI) and, therefore, it was not clear that the applicant’s symptoms were not related directly to the TBI. 5. The SRP concluded there was insufficient evidence that Criterion C or that Criterion A2 were met, based on the preponderance of evidence. Furthermore, there was insufficient evidence that the applicant met Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders-IV diagnostic criteria for major depressive disorder (MDD). The condition of MDD was not recorded in any of the applicant’s treatment record and the applicant was not treated for MDD. 6. The SRP agreed the diagnosis of anxiety disorder, NOS was the appropriate diagnosis at the time of medical retirement. The SRP also considered whether any MH conditions were unfitting for continued military service, regardless of specific diagnosis. 7. After due deliberation in consideration of the preponderance of evidence, the SRP concluded that there was insufficient evidence that any MH condition rose to the level of being unfitting at the time of separation and therefore none were subject to service disability rating. 8. 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) AR20150003715 2 ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 1