IN THE CASE OF: BOARD DATE: 2 July 2014 DOCKET NUMBER: AR20140009065 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 mental health diagnosis was changed during that process. 3. The applicant submitted an application through the DOD Physical Disability Board of Review (PDBR) Mental Health 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 a mental health condition during processing through the military disability system. 2. The Department of Defense memorandum, dated 27 February 2013, directed the Service Secretaries to conduct a review of mental health 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 separation determination. 2. The SRP considered the appropriateness of changes in the MH diagnoses; the physical evaluation board (PEB) 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 whether a disability rating recommendation in accordance with VASRD Section 4.130 was made. 3. The SRP considered that the applicant had been diagnosed with and was being treated for Generalized Anxiety Disorder (GAD) beginning at the time of entry into the Disability Evaluation System (DES) and that diagnosis continued to be recorded during his processing through the medical evaluation board (MEB) and PEB. It concluded that the diagnosis had not been changed and therefore the applicant’s case did not appear to meet the inclusion criteria of the Terms of Reference of the MH Review Project. 4. The SRP noted that both the MEB and PEB recorded the diagnosis of major depressive disorder (MDD) as meeting retention standards. The attention deficit/hyperactive disorder (ADHD) was not a physical disability and was not ratable in accordance with (IAW) Department of Defense Instruction (DoDI) 1332.38. Disability associated with any psychiatric condition, regardless of the diagnosis or multiple diagnoses, was subsumed under a single rating using the same criteria IAW VASRD Section 4.130. Therefore, in presence of an unfitting anxiety disorder, the applicant’s disability rating recommendation from the SRP would be unaffected by the specific psychiatric diagnosis of MDD determined to be not unfitting by the service. 5. The SRP later considered the provision of VASRD Section 4.129 and agreed that the applicant’s own non-recall of any outstanding traumatic event while deployed coupled with the failure to identify attributable Criterion ‘A’ events would not support a conclusion that a highly-stressful event occurred severe enough to bring about his release from active military service. Therefore, the application of VASRD Section 4.129 was not appropriate in this case. The SRP finally considered if there was evidence for a VASRD Section 4.130 rating higher than 50 percent at time of permanent retirement. The SRP considered and agreed that the record in evidence best supported the 50 percent rating for permanent retirement and there was insufficient reasonable doubt for recommending a 70 percent rating. 6. After due deliberation in consideration of the preponderance of the evidence, the SRP concluded that the diagnosis of anxiety disorder with application of VASRD Section 4.130 rating of 50 percent at permanent retirement was appropriate. 7. 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) AR20140009065 2 ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 1