IN THE CASE OF: BOARD DATE: 23 July 2014 DOCKET NUMBER: AR20140010719 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 also states 20 percent was offered then taken back because of the diagnosis of Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD). The applicant further states, in effect, that he has several illnesses and receives 70 percent from the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA). Lastly, the applicant states, in effect, that he should be promoted to Sergeant/E5 and given a 30 percent rating. 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. Consideration of other than the military disability evaluation pertaining to MH conditions is not within the purview of this particular records review. If the applicant desires to have the Board consider correcting his records to show he was promoted to Sergeant he will need to submit a separate application. 2. 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. 3. 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. 4. In the processing of this case, an advisory opinion was obtained from the PDBR SRP and the applicant was provided a copy. 5. 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 fitness determination. 2. The SRP considered the appropriateness of changes in the MH diagnoses; Physical Evaluation Board (PEB) fitness determination; and if unfitting, whether the provisions of Department of Veterans Affairs Schedule for Rating Disabilities (VASRD) section 4.129 were applicable, with a disability rating recommendation in accordance with VASRD section 4.130. 3. The SRP noted that while PTSD had appeared previously in the chart, diagnosed by the VA, and had been documented on the DD Form 2808 (Report of Medical History), dysthymic disorder was documented by the physician who performed the fitness for duty evaluation for the Medical Evaluation Board (MEB). 4. The SRP noted that the psychiatrist who provided the second opinion to the MEB added a diagnosis of anxiety disorder, not otherwise specified to the dysthymic disorder, but anxiety disorder was not on the final narrative summary (NARSUM) or MEB. Dysthymic disorder was the diagnosis forwarded by the MEB and adjudicated by the PEB. The formal PEB did include “called PTSD by the VA” in their adjudication description for dysthymia. Therefore, the SRP concluded that the applicant met the inclusion criteria of the Terms of Reference of the MH Review Project. 5. The SRP then considered the appropriateness of the diagnosis. A review of available VA data reveals statements that the applicant met the criteria for a diagnosis of PTSD without supplying a great deal of specifics regarding how those criteria had been met. As pointed out by the NARSUM psychiatrist, there is no mention of any particularly stressful event that occurred during deployment or that was specifically re-experienced by the applicant following deployment. The same examiner points out that irritability and anger management appeared to be the primary symptoms. While those symptoms are seen as part of the PTSD constellation, there appeared to be little evidence in the available record to support that the remainder of the criteria required by Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM-IV) for a PTSD diagnosis had been met. The SRP concluded that the preponderance of the evidence did not support a change in the diagnosis adjudicated by the PEB. 6. The SRP next considered the issue of fitness regardless of diagnosis. Based on its review of the available record, the SRP concluded the preponderance of evidence did not support that a MH condition was unfitting at the time of the applicant's PEB. 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 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) AR20140010719 2 ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 1