IN THE CASE OF: BOARD DATE: 24 September 2014 DOCKET NUMBER: AR20140014500 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 to the applicant’s disability and retirement 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 was made. The applicant did not meet the inclusion criteria in the Terms of Reference of the MH Diagnosis Review Project. 3. The SRP determined that regardless of final PEB diagnosis, VASRD Section 4.129 did not specify a diagnosis of Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD), rather it stated “mental disorder due to a highly stressful event,” and its application was not restricted to PTSD. The SRP agreed that there was not sufficient evidence to support a conclusion that a highly-stressful event severe enough to bring about the veteran’s release from active military service occurred and that the application of VASRD Section 4.129 was not appropriate in this case. 4. The SRP noted a rating recommendation at the time of the applicant's medical retirement. Under the 9413 code (anxiety disorder, not otherwise specified) the PEB assigned a 30 percent rating, which stipulated “occupational and social impairment with occasional decrease in work efficiency and intermittent inability to perform occupational tasks.” An existed prior to service (EPTS) factor was noted, but no deduction was made. The next higher 50 percent rating required “occupational and social impairment with reduced reliability and productivity.” 5. The SRP also noted while deliberating a rating recommendation that there were three threshold symptoms for a 30 percent rating, and one or possibly two 50 percent threshold symptoms. While the medical evaluation board (MEB) psychiatrist used both 30 percent and 50 percent rating language in describing the condition’s impact on occupational functioning, that examiner’s assigned Global Assessment of Functioning (GAF) score suggested only mild symptoms or impairment. Meanwhile, the commander reported the presence of some relationship difficulty at work, but did not identify MH symptoms as a cause of impaired duty performance. 6. The SRP debated the significance of the applicant’s rebuttal to the MEB, which disagreed with a conclusion that she experienced social impairment; and which conflicted with historical details used by previous MH providers in formulating their diagnostic assessments and conclusions. It was also considered that in August 2010, not long before retirement, the applicant indicated she was experiencing no difficulty in coping at work or home. The SRP concluded that the evidence just described was most accurately described by the “occasional decrease in work efficiency and intermittent inability to perform occupational tasks” stipulation of the 30 percent rating. 7. After due deliberation in consideration of the preponderance of the evidence, and mindful of VASRD Section 4.3 (reasonable doubt), the SRP concluded that there was insufficient cause to recommend a change in the PEB adjudication for the major depressive disorder condition. 8. 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) AR20140014500 2 ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 1