IN THE CASE OF: BOARD DATE: 17 September 2015 DOCKET NUMBER: AR20150013361 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 an 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 an 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 determined by unanimous vote that there be no change of the applicant’s disability and separation determination. 2. The SRP reviewed the records for evidence of inappropriate changes in diagnosis of the MH condition during processing through the military disability evaluation system (DES) program. The evidence of the available records shows the diagnoses of major depressive disorder (MDD) and cognitive disorder were rendered during DES processing. There was no evidence that applicant had ever officially been given a post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) diagnosis during the DES process. The SRP agreed there were no inappropriate changes in diagnosis and therefore determined that MH diagnoses were not changed to the applicant’s possible disadvantage in the disability evaluation. Therefore the applicant did not appear to meet the inclusion criteria in the Terms of Reference of the MH Review Project. 3. The SRP concluded that the preponderance of evidence did not support a diagnosis of PTSD at the time of separation. Adequate evidence prior to separation was lacking. The Orthopedic Medical Board (August 2009) noted the applicant had a “post-PTSD” status and a neurosurgery review of systems included “PTSD” without any description of symptoms. The MH Addendum and two neuropsychological exams within 9 months of separation specifically reported the applicant did not meet criteria for PTSD. The Compensation and Pension (C&P) exam noted the applicant did not have anxiety symptoms that warranted any diagnosis. 4. The SRP noted the Physical Evaluation Board (PEB) adjudicated dementia due to other neurological disorders (Parkinson’s disease) as unfitting. The PEB also noted that the applicant’s cognitive disorder was due to Parkinson’s disease and acknowledged some depressive symptoms contributed to the cognitive disorder. The SRP further noted that Parkinson’s disease was a neurologically based disease, whose signs and symptoms could include cognitive problems (e.g., memory, concentration), depression and anxiety. 5. The SRP considered if the evidence justified a rating higher than the 30 percent adjudicated by the PEB. The next higher 50 percent rating specified “reduced reliability and productivity” and the 30 percent rating specified “occupational and social impairment with occasional decrease in work efficiency and intermittent periods of inability to perform occupational tasks.” The commander’s statement indicated occasional difficulties with reduced reliability and productivity and the applicant’s duty hours were reduced from 8 hours/day to 4 hours/day. He could work well in the beginning of the week but as the week went by he was pressed to complete a project. After separation he was able to work on his farm at times and fish and hunt. This appeared to be consistent with criteria for the 30 percent rating. 6. After due deliberation in consideration of the preponderance of the evidence, the SRP concluded the criteria for the 50 percent rating were not met and a 30 percent rating was recommended. 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) AR20150013361 3 ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 1