IN THE CASE OF: BOARD DATE: 30 July 2014 DOCKET NUMBER: AR20140010915 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 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 a MH 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 applicant's 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. 3. The SRP considered the criteria for diagnosis according to the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual for Mental Disorders, Fourth Edition, Text Revision (DSM- IV TR) including: the evidence for the stressor (criterion A), re-experiencing of the event (criterion B), persistent avoidance of stimuli associated with the trauma (criterion C), hyperarousal (criterion D), duration and onset (criterion E), or the presence of clinically significant distress or impairment in social, occupational or other important area of functioning (criterion F). 4. The SRP first considered the diagnosis. It noted that while the applicant was given a number of MH diagnoses, both the profile and the medical evaluation board (MEB) examination listed Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD). However, the MEB psychiatrist diagnosed generalized anxiety disorder (GAD) based on both an examination and review of the military records. The SRP determined that a preponderance of evidence did not support a change in the diagnosis. The MEB forwarded the MH diagnoses of GAD to the PEB for adjudication. The PEB adjudicated the applicant for GAD. Nonetheless, the diagnosis of PTSD was listed on both the DD Form 2808 and profile form. The SRP determined that the MH diagnoses were changed to the applicant's possible disadvantage in the disability evaluation process. Therefore, the applicant did meet the inclusion criteria in the Terms of Reference of the MH Review Project. 5. The SRP also considered if the applicant's MH diagnosis, regardless of description, was unfitting. He was issued an S2 profile. The MEB psychiatrist noted that the GAD met retention standards as did the MEB. The PEB did not find the condition unfitting. The applicant had a long-standing history of MH issues, but had apparently been able to function satisfactorily at work other than the disciplinary issues. He was entered into the Disability Evaluation System (DES) process for the orthopedic issues and separated for the same. 6. After due deliberation in consideration of the preponderance of the evidence, the SRP concluded that the evidence did not support the presence of an unfitting MH condition at time of the applicant's separation. 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) AR20140010915 2 ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 1