IN THE CASE OF: BOARD DATE: 12 May 2015 DOCKET NUMBER: AR20150006052 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 to the applicant's disability and retirement determination. 2. The SRP considered the appropriateness of changes in the applicant's MH diagnoses, whether the provisions of Department of Veterans Affairs Schedule for Rating Disabilities (VASRD) section 4.129 were applicable, and a disability rating recommendation in accordance with VASRD section4.130. The SRP reviewed the records for evidence of inappropriate changes in diagnosis of the MH condition during processing through the Disability Evaluation System (DES). Diagnoses of psychotic disorder not otherwise specified (NOS), cognitive disorder NOS, atypical psychosis and paranoid schizophrenia were rendered during the DES process. The diagnosis of schizophrenia of any type was not forwarded to the Physical Evaluation Board (PEB); however this was not to the applicant’s disadvantage because schizophrenia was subsumed under the diagnosis of psychotic disorder. 3. The SRP agreed there were no inappropriate changes in diagnosis and therefore determined that MH diagnoses were not changed to the applicant’s possible disadvantage in the disability evaluation. Therefore, the applicant did not meet the inclusion criteria in the Terms of Reference of the MH Review Project. 4 The SRP considered whether the provisions of VASRD section 4.129 were applicable for the unfitting MH conditions. Regardless of final PEB diagnosis, VASRD section 4.129 does not specify a diagnosis of post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD), rather it states “mental disorder due to a highly stressful event,” and its application is not restricted to PTSD. The SRP agreed that the requisite VASRD section 4.129 links that the condition occurred “as a result of" in-service stressors was not adequately satisfied and therefore concluded that application of VASRD 4.129 was not appropriate in this case. The SRP also concluded that the PEB properly subsumed cognitive disorder under psychotic disorder. 5. The SRP also considered if there was evidence for a VASRD section 4.130 rating higher than 50 percent at time of placement on the Temporary Disability Retired List (TDRL). The next higher 70 percent rating is characterized by “occupational and social impairment, with deficiencies in most areas, such as work, school, family relations, judgment, thinking, or mood.” The SRP concluded that the available evidence did not support a rating higher than 50 percent at the time of the applicant's entry on TDRL. 6. The SRP noted regarding a permanent rating recommendation at the time of removal from TDRL, that the applicant endorsed an improvement in her mental condition, but the SRP considered if there was evidence for a VASRD section 4.130 rating higher than 30 percent. The SRP therefore concluded that the record in evidence did not support a rating higher than 30 percent at the time of removal from TDRL. 7 After due deliberation in consideration of the preponderance of the evidence and mindful of VASRD section 4.3, the SRP concluded that there was insufficient cause to recommend a change in the PEB adjudication for the PTSD condition. 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) AR20150006052 2 ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 1