IN THE CASE O BOARD DATE: 6 August 2014 DOCKET NUMBER: AR20140011585 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 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 unanimously determined 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 medical evaluation board (MEB) referred adjustment disorder with disturbance of emotions and conduct, insomnia, complaint of depression, complaint of anxiety and complaint of Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD) met retention standards. The physical evaluation board (PEB) adjudicated the referred MH conditions as not unfitting and noted that adjustment disorder was not a compensable condition under DOD policy (DOD Instruction) 1332.38, Enclosure 5). The MEB also referred “complaint of depression,” and the “complaint of PTSD” were not diagnoses rendered by either the MEB psychiatrist or the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) psychiatry examiner. The VA diagnosis of anxiety disorder was presumably subsumed under “complaint of anxiety,” and alcohol use was denied by the applicant prior to separation. The VA diagnosis of intermittent explosive disorder was not referred by the MEB and not adjudicated by the PEB and therefore eliminated. However, this was not a diagnosis that was included in the MH Review Project Terms of Reference; therefore, the applicant did not appear to meet the inclusion criteria of the MH Review Project. 3. The SRP later considered whether the MH conditions, regardless of specific diagnosis, were unfitting for continued military service. The SRP’s charge with respect to the MH conditions referred for review that were determined not to be unfitting by the PEB was an assessment of the appropriateness of the PEB’s fitness adjudication. The SRP’s threshold for countering PEB not unfit determinations required a preponderance of evidence. The physical profile on 7 January 2011 did not impose psychiatric limitations and was a permanent psychiatric level one (S1). The commander’s statement remarked the applicant had effective work relationships with both supervisors and co-workers and only cited physical limitations for inability to perform military duties. 4. The psychiatric note on 22 April 2011 documented no reported restriction of duties from MH symptoms or conditions 7 months prior to separation. There were no other indications of MH limitations such as no weapons, no secrets, no stressful duties, or limited duty hours, no evidence of prolonged absence from duty due to MH conditions, no hospitalization for MH reasons, and no emergent or urgent care for MH conditions, which would otherwise indicate unfitness. 5. After due deliberation in consideration of the preponderance of the evidence, the SRP concluded a not-unfit determination was appropriate for the MH conditions. 6. 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) AR20140011585 2 ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 1