NAME:  XXXXXXXXXXXXXX

RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS PHYSICAL DISABILITY BOARD OF REVIEW

CASE: PD-2017-03808

BRANCH OF SERVICE: ARMY	SEPARATION DATE: 20070101

SUMMARY OF CASE: Data extracted from the available evidence of record reflects this covered individual (CI) was an active duty E6, Unit Supply Specialist, medically separated from the Temporary Disability Retired List (TDRL) for “major depressive disorder [MDD]” with a disability rating of 10%.

CI CONTENTION:  Review all conditions.  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 Medical Evaluation Board (MEB), but determined by the PEB 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. The panel’s authority is limited to assessing the fairness and accuracy of PEB rating determinations and recommending corrections when appropriate. 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 disability at the time of separation.

RATING COMPARISON:

SERVICE PEB - 20061114	VARD - 20060330	
Condition	Code	Rating	Condition	Code	Rating	Exam	
MDD	9434	10%	PTSD; MDD	9411	70%	20050817	
COMBINED RATING: 10%	COMBINED RATING OF ALL VA CONDITIONS: 70%	

ANALYSIS SUMMARY:

MDD. According to the service treatment record and MEB narrative summary (NARSUM), the CI had an adolescent history of cutting his wrists and overdosing, and reported thoughts of suicidal and homicidal ideation towards his family in 2000. He was diagnosed with MDD and despite treatment with an anti-depressant, symptoms persisted resulting in hospitalization in December 2001. He received an S3 profile due to MDD in April 2005, and in August 2005, a VA examination reported combat trauma during a deployment, as well as childhood abuse, behavioral, emotional and legal problems prior to service, but no psychiatric diagnosis. Diagnoses of PTSD and MDD were rendered, and the MDD was rated 30% by the PEB, citing “definite industrial impairment.” The CI was separated and placed on the TDRL on 2 September 2005.

The 27 October 2006 TDRL NARSUM examination, 2 months prior to TDRL removal, noted complaints of mild to moderate depressive symptoms, sleep problems, and irritability, which were aided by anti-depressant and mood stabilizing medications and sleep aids. He reported some difficulty with commands, work and family related stress, and remained in outpatient treatment  with  a  psychiatrist  bi-monthly  and  a  counselor  monthly.     He  reported    coping

adequately with the depressive symptoms with a stable mood. Since TDRL placement, he had performed well as a civilian employee, took leave at one point to care for his ill grandfather, and had no significant relationship difficulties. The mental status examination showed a flat and constricted affect. A diagnosis of MDD was rendered with a Global Assessment of Functioning (GAF) score of 70 (mild symptoms, impairment).

The panel directed attention to its rating recommendation based on the above evidence. The PEB rated the MDD 10%, coded 9434 (MDD), citing industrial mild to no industrial impairment. The VA rated PTSD/MDD 70%, coded 9411 (PTSD), based on the C&P examination, citing occupational and social impairment, with deficiencies in most areas. Panel members considered the provisions of VASRD §4.129 (mental disorders due to traumatic stress), and agreed there was no evidence of a traumatic event or stressor causing the unfitting mental health condition, and that application of VASRD §4.129 was not appropriate in this case. A diagnosis of PTSD was not profiled, implicated in the commander’s statement, or documented in the NARSUM examination. The panel noted that the NARSUM examination reported minimal symptoms and mood stabilization with regular medication and therapy. The CI had no work or relational difficulties, and there were no reports of hospitalizations, emergency room visits or legal problems since TDRL placement. The panel concluded the CI’s condition most closely met criteria for a 10% disability. After due deliberation, considering all the evidence and mindful of VASRD §4.3 (reasonable doubt), the panel concluded there was insufficient cause to recommend a change in the PEB adjudication for the MDD.

BOARD FINDINGS: In the matter of the major depressive disorder and IAW VASRD §4.130, the panel recommends no change in the PEB adjudication. There are no other conditions within the panel’s scope of review for consideration. Therefore, the panel recommends no modification or re-characterization of the CI’s disability and separation determination.

The following documentary evidence was considered:

2	PD-2017-03808

DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY
ARMY REVIEW BOARDS AGENCY
251 18TH STREET SOUTH, SUITE
385
ARLINGTON, VA 22202-3531

AR20200000143,

Dear XXXXXXXXXXXX

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.

Enclosure

Printed on	Recycled Paper