Search Decisions

Decision Text

AF | PDBR | CY2012 | PD2012 00998
Original file (PD2012 00998.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
PHYSICAL DISABILITY BOARD OF REVIEW

NAME: XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX CASE : PD1200 998
BRANCH OF SERVICE: AIR FORCE BOARD DATE: 201 4 0115
Separation Date: 20031215


SUMMARY OF CASE : Data extracted from the available evidence of record reflects that this covered individual (CI) was an active duty SSgt/E-5 (3P0, Security Forces) medically separated for a mental health condition. She was first seen in 2001 for depression related to relationship and financial challenges, but did not follow up with treatment. Available evidence of record indicates the CI did not deploy to a combat theater. There were suicide attempts in 2002 and 2003, and the condition could not be adequately rehabilitated to meet the requirements of her Air Force Specialty Code (AFSC), so she was issued an S4 profile and referred for a Medical Evaluation Board (MEB). The mental health condition, characterized as “Major Depressive Disorder (MDD), recurrent, mild severity”, was forwarded to the Physical Evaluation Board (PEB) IAW AFI 48-123. No other conditions were submitted by the MEB. The PEB adjudicated the same diagnosis as unfitting, rated 10%, referencing the Veteran’s Affairs Schedule for Rating Disabilities (VASRD). The CI made no appeals and was medically separated.


CI CONTENTION : “major depressive disorder changed to bipolar due to continue suicidal thoughts and severe depression”


 SCOPE OF REVIEW : The Board’s scope of review is defined in DoDI 6040.44, Enclosure 3, paragraph 5.e. (2). It is limited to those conditions determined by the PEB to be unfitting for continued military service and those conditions identified but not determined to be unfitting by the PEB when specifically requested by the CI. The Service ratings for the unfitting depression condition is addressed below; no additional conditions are within the DoDI 6040.44 defined purview of the Board. Any conditions or contention not requested in this application or otherwise outside the Board’s defined scope of review remain eligible for future consideration by the Board for Correction of Military Records.


 RATING COMPARISON :
invalid font number 31502
Service PEB – Dated 20030917 VA - (2 Mos. Pre-Separation)
Condition Code Rating Condition Code Rating Exam
MDD, Recurrent, Mild Severity 9434 10% MDD 9434 50% 20031021
No Additional MEB/PEB Entries Other x 2 20031103
Combined: 10% Combined: 50%
Derived from VA Rating Decision (VARD) dated 20040114


ANALYSIS SUMMARY : The Military Disability Evaluation System (MDES) is responsible for maintaining a fit and vital fighting force. While the MDES considers all of the service member's medical conditions, compensation can only be offered for those medical conditions that cut short a service member’s career, and then only to the degree of severity present at the time of final disposition. However the Department of Veteran Affairs (DVA), operating under a different set of laws (Title 38, United States Code), is empowered to compensate service connected conditions and to periodically re-evaluate said conditions for the purpose of adjusting the veteran’s disability rating should his degree of impairment vary over time.

 Mild, Recurrent M ajor D epressive D isorder Condition . The CI ha d a long , well documented history of MDD as evidenced by the numerous notes in the S ervice T reatment R ecord (STR). She developed symptoms of MDD in November 2001 related to relationship and financial problems. A psychodynamic interview revealed a moderately dysphoric mild mood. The examiner diagnosed Axis I adjustment disorder –anxiety, depressed mood with a Global Assessment of Functioning (GAF) of 65 - some difficulty in social, occupational, or school functioning, but generally functioning pretty well, has some meaningful interpersonal relationships and recommended individual psychotherapy. The CI was enrolled in the Family Advocacy Progra m and from January 2002 throughout to November 2003, there were notes that indicated one case of substantiated intra familial neglect and s everal unsubstantiated reports of neglect . In May 2002 the CI’s mental status exam showed a moderately depressed mood; sad affect; mild transient suicidal ideation without plan or intent; irritability; low appetite; early awakening and fair attention and concentration. The examiner changed the diagnosis to MDD, single episode, moderate with a GAF of 61 - some difficulty in social, occupational, or school functioning, but generally functioning pretty well, has some meaningful interpersonal relationships. The examiner recommended to continue the individual psychotherapy, possibly Healthy Coping Support Group and was referred to Family Practice for antidepressant medication. In August 2002, the CI attempted suicide by ingestion of ten 20 mg Celexa tablets while in an acute dysphoric mood. In follow-up the examiner noted a moderately depressed mood without suicidal intent . The Axis I diagnosis of MDD, single episode, moderate was continued with a GAF of 58 - moderate difficulty in social, occupational, or school functioning . In September 2002, the CI’s symptoms of depression showed improvement although she still had a mildly depressed mood. The GAF was 65 - some difficulty in social, occupational, or school functioning, but generally functioning pretty well, has some meaningful interpersonal relationships. In December 2002, the examiner noted that the depression was resolved on medication (Celexa) and the CI was doing well overall with a GAF of 75 - If symptoms are present they are transient and expectable reactions to psychosocial stressors; no more than slight impairment in social, occupational, or school functioning. In June 2003 , the CI had a second suicide attempt by ingesting twenty five tablets of non-aspirin medication. Two weeks later, the CI was seen by her psychiatrist who noted that the CI reported mild depressive symptoms and a normal mental status exam. The examiner diagnosed MDD, single episode, moderate severity, and exacerbation with a GAF – 65 . The MEB Narrative Summary (NARSUM) exam comp l eted approximately five and one half prior to sep a ration documented that the CI had a pattern of missing medical appointments in between episodes of crisis ; and had relationship issues with her boyfriend and child care issues. The mental status exam noted that her mood was mildly depressed but she exhibited no evidence of thought disorder and no psychotic ideation nor were there any concentration or speech problems . The examiner opined that the CI had mild precipitating stress; definite social- i ndustrial impairment; and marked military impairment. The examiner further opined that that the CI exhibited emotional reactivity to life crises, particular relationship problems; the emotional volatility suggested borderline personality traits; however she did not suffer from borderline personality disorder; she was likely to suffer from affective instability during relationship stress with likely suicidal ideation and possible additional suicide attempts. The diagnosis was Axis I MDD, recurrent, mild severity with a GAF of 65 . The CI was given a temporary S4 Profile . A Commander’s Statement noted that the CI’s level of anxiety and depression affected her job performance along with her history of stopping her antidepressant “cold turkey” which contributed to her depths of depression and precipitated her suicide attempts. The examiner further noted “She continues to attempt a positive attitude while among members of the unit, but the level of her anxiety and depression at times affects job performance ” . A Psychology MEB addendum completed approximately four months prior to separation noted that there was no change in the CI’s symptoms and she continued to experience a low mood due to recent psychosocial stressors involving her children’s daycare issues. An updated MEB NARSUM addendum approximately three months prior to separation noted that the CI continued with increased psychosocial difficulties with her children and finances and these issues triggered anxiety which impaired her sleep and concentration. The Psychologist assigned a GAF of 68 . The VA Compensation and Pension (C&P) exam approximately one and one half months prior to separation documented that the CI endorsed symptoms of stress; significant anxiety; poor sleep with freq uent awakenings despite use of Tylenol pm; fatigue; intrusive thoughts about life problems; crying episodes; depressed mood; very emotional at times; impulsivity and hopelessness at times. The mental status exam showed normal speech with a n anxious and depressed mood with a full affect. Her judgment was fair and she had poor concentration and insight , and her memory and abstract thinking were normal . She endorsed chronic sleep impairment , anhedonia, significant guilt , impulsivity and suicidal thoughts- as recent as one week prior to this exam . The examiner diagnosed Axis I MDD, recurrent, severe with a GAF of 50 - serious impairment in social, occupational, or school functioning. The Board also notes that a C&P exam performed 24 months after separation documents that the CI’s mental health diagnosis was changed to Bipolar disorder sometime after her separation from military service while receiving treatment from the VA.

The Board directs attenti on to its rating recommendation based on the above evidence . The PEB coded the MDD, recurrent, mild severity as 9434 and rated 10%. The VA coded the MDD 9434 and rated at 50%. The CI had a well-documented history of depression and two suicidal attempts. At the time of the MEB NARSUM and MEB Addendums, the examiners continued to document definite social-industrial impairment; and marked military impairment , continued depression and anxiety which triggered imp aired sleep and concentration. She was given a temporary S4 Profile. The VA C&P exam was closer to separation and more precisely demonstrated the CI’s symptoms at separation and therefore was deemed to be of higher probative value for rating purposes. Based on the findings documented i n the C&P exam, Board deliberations focused on 10% vs 30% deliberations as the CI did not have the o ccupational and social impairment with reduced reliability and productivity due to flattened affect ; circumstantial, circumlocutory, or stereotyped speech ; panic attacks more than once a week ; or impairment of short- and long-term memory or abstract thinking as required for a 50% rating under the VASRD’s General Rating Formula for Mental Disorders. The Board considered a 10% rating due to occupational and social impairment due to mild or transient symptoms which decrease work efficiency and ability to perform occupational tasks only during periods of significant stress, or; symptoms controlled by continuous medication. The majority of symptoms were related to stressful relationship or child related issues. Her CC’s statement contained the following statement, “ She continues to attempt a positive attitude while among members of the unit, but the level of her anxiety and depression at times affects job performance. ” The Board notes that the CI’s mental health condition was likely evolving at the time of her separation and was identified as Bipolar II sometime after separation by her VA providers. The Board considers VA evidence within 12 months of separation only to the extent that it reasonably reflects the disability at the time of separation. After due deliberation, considering all of the evidence and mindful of VASRD §4.3 (reasonable doubt), the Board recommends a disability rating of 10% for the MDD condition.


BOARD FINDINGS : IAW DoDI 6040.44, provisions of DoD or Military Department regulations or guidelines relied upon by the PEB will not be considered by the Board to the extent they were inconsistent with the VASRD in effect at the time of the adjudication. The Board did not surmise from the record or PEB ruling in this case that any prerogatives outside the VASRD were exercised. I n the matter of the M ajor Depressive D isorder condition, the Board by a vote of 2:1 recommends a disability rating of 1 0% , coded 9434 IAW VASRD §4. 130 . The single voter for dissent who recommended a 30% rating did not elect to submit a minority opinion. There were no other conditions within the Board’s scope of review for consideration.


RECOMMENDATION : The Board, therefore, recommends that there be no recharacterization of the CI’s disability and separation determination, as follows:

UNFITTING CONDITION VASRD CODE RATING
Major Depressive Disorder 9434 10%
COMBINED 1 0%


The following documentary evidence was considered:
Exhibit A. DD Form 294, dated 20 1200998 , w/atchs
Exhib it B. Service Treatment Record
Exhibit C. Department of Veterans ’ Affairs Treatment Record





XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX , DAF
President
Physical Disability Board of Review



SAF/MRB
1500 West Perimeter Road, Suite 3700
Joint Base Andrews, MD 20762


Dear XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX:

         Reference your application submitted under the provisions of DoDI 6040.44 (Title 10 U.S.C. § 1554a), PDBR Case Number PD-2012-00998.

         After careful consideration of your application and treatment records, the Physical Disability Board of Review determined that the rating assigned at the time of final disposition of your disability evaluation system processing was appropriate. Accordingly, the Board recommended no re-characterization or modification of your separation.

         I have carefully reviewed the evidence of record and the recommendation of the Board. I concur with that finding and their conclusion that re-characterization of your separation is not warranted. Accordingly, I accept their recommendation that your application be denied.

                                                               Sincerely,





XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
Director
Air Force Review Boards Agency

Attachment:
Record of Proceedings

Similar Decisions

  • AF | PDBR | CY2012 | PD2012 01782

    Original file (PD2012 01782.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    Any conditions or contention not requested in this application, or otherwise outside the Board’s defined scope of review, remain eligible for future consideration by the Board for Correction of Military Records. The diagnosis was the same as at the MEB exam with the C&P examiner noting “GAF of 45- “indicating major symptoms of depression along with evidence of impairment of reality with visual hallucinations and problems with sleep and concentration, which would interfere with her ability...

  • AF | PDBR | CY2014 | PD-2014-03325

    Original file (PD-2014-03325.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    The MEB forwarded the following Axis I conditions to the Physical Evaluation Board (PEB) IAW AFI 48-123 and 44-113:“maj depressive disorder/recurrent/moderate; anxiety disorder NOS; alcohol dep.” The MEB also forwarded “borderline personality traits” as an Axis II condition.No other conditions were submitted by the MEB.The PEB adjudicated the referred Axis I conditions, less the alcohol dependence condition, as a single unfitting condition (for rating purposes), “major depressive disorder...

  • AF | PDBR | CY2010 | PD2010-00117

    Original file (PD2010-00117.doc) Auto-classification: Denied

    Mental Condition/Major Depressive Disorder/Anxiety Disorder. The Board noted the recommendation made by the AFBCMR medical consultant for the contributions of the pre-existing component of her condition, the presence of the paranoid personality disorder and the examiners implication that the CI failed to disclose her psychiatric issues prior to enlistment; however, there was no evidence whatsoever in the record that the CI ever received medical treatment for a psychiatric condition prior to...

  • AF | PDBR | CY2012 | PD2012 01903

    Original file (PD2012 01903.rtf) Auto-classification: Approved

    RECORD OF PROCEEDINGSPHYSICAL DISABILITY BOARD OF REVIEWNAME: XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX CASE: PD1201903BRANCH OF SERVICE: AIR FORCEBOARD DATE: 20130509 Post-separation evidence is probative to the Board’s recommendations only to the extent that it reasonably reflects the disability at the time of separation.Any conditions or contention not requested in this application, or otherwise outside the Board’s defined scope of review, remain eligible for future consideration by the Air Force Board for...

  • AF | PDBR | CY2012 | PD2012 01187

    Original file (PD2012 01187.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    It is limited to those conditions determined by the PEB to be unfitting for continued military service and those conditions identified but not determined to be unfitting by the PEB when specifically requested by the CI. She was placed on medications and was able to function well. The majority agreed that the evidence did not warrant application of VASRD §4.129.The Board then determined the most appropriate fit with VASRD §4.130 criteria, its permanent rating recommendation at the time of...

  • AF | PDBR | CY2013 | PD-2013-01994

    Original file (PD-2013-01994.rtf) Auto-classification: Approved

    The Board reviews medical records and other available evidence to assess the fairness of PEB rating determinations, using the Veterans Affairs Schedule for Rating Disabilities (VASRD) standards, based on ratable severity at the time of separation. During the CI’s TDRL removal, the PEB rated the MDD disorder at a 10%. Providing a correction to the individual’s separation document showing that the individual was separated by reason of permanent disability retirement effective the date of the...

  • AF | PDBR | CY2012 | PD2012 00843

    Original file (PD2012 00843.rtf) Auto-classification: Approved

    The veteran is planning on attending school full-time. Later that month the CI was hospitalized and medicated for increased suicide ideations.Just 4 months later, in January 2007 (2 months after separation), the only C&P PTSD exam available for Board review, documented the CI’s “affective state is that of an individual who experiences anxiety, depression, irritability and fluctuating ego states.” The examiner rendered a GAF of 55 or moderate impairment. Consequently, both MEB and VA...

  • AF | PDBR | CY2014 | PD-2014-00430

    Original file (PD-2014-00430.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    The Board’s assessment of the PEB rating determinations is confined to review of medical records and all available evidence for application of the VASRD standards to the unfitting medical condition at the time of separation. Post-Separation) ConditionCodeRatingConditionCodeRatingExam Major Depressive Disorder943410%Major Depressive Disorder943430%20060613Other MEB/PEB Conditions x 0 (Not In Scope)Other x 0 RATING: 10%RATING: 30% *Derived from VA Rating Decision (VARD)dated 20060613 (most...

  • AF | PDBR | CY2013 | PD-2013-01644

    Original file (PD-2013-01644.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    The Board’s assessment of the PEB rating determinations is confined to review of medical records and all available evidence for application of theVeterans Affairs Schedule for Rating Disabilities (VASRD) standards to the unfitting medical condition at the time of separation. RECOMMENDATION : The Board recommends that the CI’s prior determination be modified as follows, effective as of the date of her prior medical separation: I have carefully reviewed the evidence of record and the...

  • AF | PDBR | CY2014 | PD-2014-01975

    Original file (PD-2014-01975.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    The MDD was rated at 10%. RATING COMPARISON : Final Service PEB - 20060426 VA ( STR Used) - Effective 20040501On TDRL - 20040501 CodeRatingConditionCodeRatingExam ConditionTDRL Sep.Major Depressive Disorder943430%10%Major Depressive Disorder943430%STROther x 0 (Not in Scope)Other x 9STR Rating: 30% → 10% Combined: 40% *Reflects VA rating exam proximate to TDRL placement; no VA rating evidence proximate to permanent separation ANALYSIS SUMMARY :IAW DoDI 6040.44, the Board’s authority is...