RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 

PHYSICAL DISABILITY BOARD OF REVIEW 

BRANCH OF SERVICE:  ARMY 
SEPARATION DATE:  20031123 

 
NAME:  XXXXXXXXXXXXXX 
CASE NUMBER:  PD1200794 
BOARD DATE:  20130109   
 
 
SUMMARY  OF  CASE:    Data  extracted  from  the  available  evidence  of  record  reflects  that  this 
covered  individual  (CI)  was  a  National  Guard  SGT/E-5  (95B20/Military  Police),  medically 
separated  for  major  depressive  disorder  (MDD).    He  was  issued  a  permanent  S3  profile  and 
referred for a Medical Evaluation Board (MEB).  The MEB forwarded no other conditions for 
Physical  Evaluation  Board  (PEB)  adjudication.    The  PEB  adjudicated  the  MDD  condition  as 
unfitting,  rated  10%  with  application  of  the  Veterans  Affairs  Schedule  for  Rating  Disabilities 
(VASRD).  The CI made no appeals, and was medically separated with a 10% disability rating.   
 
 
CI CONTENTION:  The CI elaborated no specific contention in his application.   
 
 
SCOPE OF REVIEW:  The Board wishes to clarify that the scope of its review as defined in DoDI 
6040.44, Enclosure 3, paragraph 5.e. (2) is limited to those conditions which were determined 
by the PEB to be specifically unfitting for continued military service; or, when requested by the 
CI, those condition(s) “identified but not determined to be unfitting by the PEB.”  The ratings 
for  unfitting  conditions  will  be  reviewed  in  all  cases.    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 Army Board for Correction of Military Records. 
 
 
RATING COMPARISON:   
 

Rating 
10% 

VA (No C&P until 2010) – All Effective Date 20030303 
Condition 
NO VA ENTRY* 
0% X 3 / Not Service-Connected x 3 
Combined:  0% 

Service IPEB – Dated 20031029 
Condition 
Code 
Major Depressive Disorder  9434 
↓No Additional MEB/PEB Entries↓ 
Combined:  10% 
*CI  filed  claim  for  depression  30  December  2003.    VARD  20050119  denied  service  connection  based  on  lack  of  requested 
documentation.  Later VARDs make no further reference to claim for depression.   
 
 
ANALYSIS SUMMARY: 
 
Major Depressive Disorder Condition.  The CI was called to active duty beginning 10 February 
2003 however he was hospitalized at a civilian hospital from 13 to 16 February 2003, requiring 
medication  management  and  psychotherapy  for  depression  with  suicidal  ideation  due  to 
multiple  stressors  including  marital,  occupational  and  financial  problems.    His  unit  initially 
classified  him  as  Absent  Without  Official  Leave  at  this  time  apparently  because  he  had  not 
reported (CI stated he had notified his unit).  Following release from the hospital the CI was 
referred  to  behavioral  health  for  continued  care.    The  CI  reported  a  10  month  history  of 
increasingly  severe  depression  and  anxiety.    This  was  precipitated  by  severe  marital  and 
financial  problems,  exacerbated  by  conflict  with  his  unit,  and  culminated  in  extreme  suicidal 

No C&P 

Code 

Rating 

Exam 

ideation with a plan to kill himself; this led to the aforementioned psychiatric hospitalization on 
13  February  2003.    At  the  12  March  2003  military  behavioral  health  evaluation  he  was 
determined to be non-deployable and referred for MEB.  On 1 April 2003, he was assigned to 
the medical hold company.  The psychiatry MEB narrative summary (NARSUM) dated 19 August 
2003,  3  months  prior  to  separation,  recounted  the  clinical  history  but  provided  no  detail 
regarding  occupational  functioning  after  treatment.    On  mental  status  examination,  the  CI 
presented  well-groomed  and  neatly  dressed  in  proper  uniform.    He  was  pleasant  and 
cooperative  with  the  interviewer  and  displayed  essentially  normal  behavior  except  for 
occasional poor eye contact, slow speech, slight hypokinesis, and episodic tearfulness.  The CI 
described his mood as "really depressed and anxious;” he was experiencing ruminations about 
his financial difficulties and anticipated problems with his unit.  Affect was slightly constricted, 
appropriate  to  content  and  moderately  reactive.    Thought  processes  were  normal  without 
evidence  of  perceptual  distortions  or  auditory  or  visual  hallucinations,  or  other  abnormal 
content.    The  CI  denied  current  suicidal  ideations  or  homicidal  ideations.    Recall,  short-term 
memory, and remote memory were intact, fund of knowledge and abstracting were also good.  
Judgment  and  insight  were  fair.    Despite  previously  witnessing  traumatic  events  during 
numerous  deployments  as  a  military  police  officer  while  on  active  duty  (January  1993  to 
December 2001), he stated the thought of deploying again did not bother him, and he denied 
symptoms  of  posttraumatic  stress  disorder  (PTSD).    The  diagnosis  was  MDD,  moderately 
severe, not in remission despite medication and psychotherapy.  The examiner estimated the 
degree of impairment for civilian social and industrial adaptability as definite, and the Global 
Assessment of Functioning at 55 (moderate symptoms).  A S3 Profile was assigned 2 September 
2003  (satisfactory  remission  from  an  acute  psychotic  or  neurotic  episode  that  permits 
utilization  under  specific  conditions;  assignment  when  outpatient  psychiatric  treatment  is 
available or certain duties can be avoided).  The commander’s statement of 15 September 2003 
recommended the CI be discharged because his medications for MDD rendered him unable to 
be  alert  and  responsive  at  all times in his MOS  of  95B/Military  Police.   The  PEB,  29  October 
2003,  2  months  after  the  psychiatry  NARSUM,  rated  the  condition  10%  citing  review  of  the 
objective  medical  evidence  of  record  indicated  the  CI’s  impairment  for  social  and  industrial 
adaptability was more accurately described as mild, not definite.  There was no mental health 
VA Compensation and Pension (C&P) examination proximate to separation.  The CI filed a claim 
with the VA for depression on 30 December 2003, a month after separation; however the VA 
denied  service-connection  due  to  not  receiving  requested  documentation. 
  VA  rating 
documents through May 2010 fall silent with regard to claims for depression.  The first mental 
health  C&P  examination,  3  November  2011,  8  years  after  separation,  notes  the  last  mental 
health  treatment  the  CI  received  was  in  2003  and  that  since  that  time  he  had  not  sought 
treatment  for  sleep  problems  or  mood  problems.    The  examination  indicated  that  following 
separation from active duty at the end of November 2003, the CI returned to his civilian job as a 
police  officer  at  a  military  base  (with  security  clearance).    He  divorced  his  wife  in  2004  and 
remarried in 2004, “marriage is great.”   
 
The Board directs attention to its rating recommendation based on the above evidence.  The 
Board  considered  the  provisions  of  §4.129  and  concluded  they  do  not  to  apply  in  this  case.  
PTSD was considered by the examining psychiatrist and specifically excluded as a diagnosis and 
symptoms of depression were due to marital and financial stressors during the 10 months prior 
to call to active duty for deployment.  The NARSUM and the commander’s letter provide no 
clear  evidence  of  occupational  functioning  at  the  time  of  separation.    The  Board  noted  the 
subjective symptoms recorded at the time of the NARSUM supported consideration of the 30% 
rating.  The PEB cited review of objective evidence of the record in its determination that the 
social  and  industrial  adaptability  was  more  accurately  described  as  mild.    The  Board  did  not 
have any documentation other than the NARSUM of August 2003 2 months before the time of 

the PEB.  The next available evidence to assess the severity of the condition was the 2011 C&P 
examination noted above.  That examination indicated return to civilian employment without 
difficulty  and  a  successful  marriage  without  treatment  more  nearly  approximating  a  zero 
percent rating.  The Board also noted the depressive symptoms began prior to recall to active 
duty  and  that  military  service  did  not  aggravate  the  condition.    After  due  deliberation, 
considering all of the evidence and mindful of VASRD §4.3 (Resolution of reasonable doubt), 
The Board recommends no change from the PEB’s adjudication 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.  In the matter of the MDD 
and  IAW  VASRD  §4.130,  the  Board  unanimously  recommends  no  change  in  the  PEB 
adjudication.    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 
Major Depressive Disorder 

VASRD CODE  RATING 
9434 
COMBINED 

10% 
10% 

 
 
The following documentary evidence was considered: 
 
Exhibit A.  DD Form 294, dated 20120406, w/atchs 
Exhibit B.  Service Treatment Record 
Exhibit C.  Department of Veterans’ Affairs Treatment Record 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 

 

           XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX, DAF 
           Director 
           Physical Disability Board of Review 

 
 

 
 
 

 
 
 

 
 
 

 
 
 

 
 

 
 
 

SFMR-RB 
 
 
 
 
MEMORANDUM FOR Commander, US Army Physical Disability Agency  
(TAPD-ZB / XXXXXX), 2900 Crystal Drive, Suite 300, Arlington, VA  22202-3557 
 
SUBJECT:  Department of Defense Physical Disability Board of Review Recommendation 
for XXXXXXXXXXX, AR20130002282 (PD201200794) 
 
 
I have reviewed the enclosed Department of Defense Physical Disability Board of 
Review (DoD PDBR) recommendation and record of proceedings pertaining to the 
subject individual.  Under the authority of Title 10, United States Code, section 1554a,   
I accept the Board’s recommendation and hereby deny the individual’s application.   
This decision is final.  The individual concerned, counsel (if any), and any Members of 
Congress who have shown interest in this application have been notified of this decision 
by mail. 
 
 BY ORDER OF THE SECRETARY OF THE ARMY: 
 
 
 
 
Encl 
 
 
 
 
 

     XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX 
     Deputy Assistant Secretary 
         (Army Review Boards)