Search Decisions

Decision Text

AF | PDBR | CY2014 | PD-2014-01997
Original file (PD-2014-01997.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
PHYSICAL DISABILITY BOARD OF REVIEW

NAME: XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX       CASE: PD-2014-01997
BRANCH OF SERVICE: AIR FORCE     BOARD DATE: 20150226
SEPARATION DATE: 20020830


SUMMARY OF CASE: Data extracted from the available evidence of record reflects that this covered individual (CI) was an active duty E-5 (Air Traffic Controller) medically separated for dysthymic disorder. The condition could not be adequately rehabilitated to meet the physical requirements of her Air Force Specialty. She was issued a temporary S4 profile and referred for a Medical Evaluation Board (MEB). Dysthymic disorder, partner relational problems were forwarded to the Physical Evaluation Board (PEB) IAW AFI 48-123. The MEB also identified and forwarded personality disorder for PEB adjudication. No other condition was submitted by the MEB. The Informal PEB adjudicated “dysthymic disorder, partner relational problems” as unfitting, rated 10% w ith likely application of the Veterans Affairs Schedule for Rating Disabilities (VASRD). The remaining condition determined to be Category III, not separately unfit and not compensable or ratable. The CI made no appeals and was medically separated.


CI CONTENTION: “My condition was not adequately assessed.”


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 when specifically requested by the CI, those conditions identified by the PEB, but determined to be not unfitting. Any conditions outside the Board’s defined scope of review and any contention not requested in this application may remain eligible for future consideration by the Board for Correction of Military/Naval Records. Furthermore, the Board’s authority is limited to assessing the fairness and accuracy of PEB rating determinations and recommending corrections, where appropriate. The Board’s assessment of the PEB rating determinations is confined to review of medical records and all available evidence for application of the Veterans Affairs Schedule for Rating Disabilities (VASRD) standards to the unfitting medical condition at the time of separation. The Board has neither the role nor the authority to compensate for post-separation progression or complications of service-connected conditions. That role and authority is granted by Congress to the Department of Veterans Affairs, operating under a different set of laws. The Board gives consideration to VA evidence, particularly within 12 months of separation, but only to the extent that it reasonably reflects the severity of the disability at the time of separation.


 RATING COMPARISON :

IPEB – Dated 20020628
 VA* - (Based on STR)
Condition
 Code Rating Condition Code Rating Exam
Dysthymic Disorder… 9433 10% Dysthymic Condition with Depression and Insomnia 9433 NSC STR
Personality Disorder Cat III Not Rated
Other x 0 (Not In Scope)
 Other x 0
RATING: 10%
 RATING: N/A
* Derived from VA Rating Decision (VA RD ) dated 20 051110 (most proximate to date of separation ( DOS ) .


ANALYSIS SUMMARY:

Dysthymic Disorder, Partner Relational Problems (subsumes all Mental Health Conditions). The record shows that the CI was first seen in mental health (MH) on 27 February 2001 for issues related to weight gain and marital discord. She was diagnosed with an adjustment disorder with a depressed mood and it was recommended she begin counseling and classes for depression management and marriage enrichment. On 20 March 2001, she began anti-depressants and was removed from controlling status (automatic then with the medication regardless of how well the individual is doing or absence of side effects). She continued follow-up in MH over the next year, but her treatment was complicated by “no-shows” and cancelled appointments. At a psychiatry evaluation on 2 August 2001, her symptoms were still present. She had discontinued her medication which was re-started at that appointment. At a follow-up appointment on 9 September 2001, neither social/industrial nor military impairment was present. On 2 November 2001, she was seen in family advocacy for alleged family maltreatment; this was later determined to be unsubstantiated. However, on 29 January 2002, she again was seen in family advocacy for “crisis intervention.” This was subsequently substantiated. She and her spouse continued to be followed in the family advocacy and MH clinics until 2 months prior to separation.

The narrative summary was dated 1 May 2002, 4 months prior to separation and dictated by the chief of psychiatry. It was noted that she had been functional at work on medications. She reported being stressed about her impending divorce and concerns of her husband’s fidelity. She desired to remain on active duty. On examination, her speech was soft and mood dysphoric (a sense of unease or dissatisfaction). It was otherwise unremarkable. She was diagnosed with a dysthymic disorder and with partner relational problems. She also had a personality disorder not otherwise specified with dependent histrionic features. She was assigned a Global Assessment of Function of 65, indicative of some mild symptoms or impairment. Her prognosis was thought to be fair with treatment and re-classification recommended with a caveat that her future performance and behavior would be similar to the past performance and behavior. The commander noted on 3 June 2002 that she worked a normal 8-to-9 hour day, but could not deploy. The latter fact was not compatible with retention. It was also noted that she declined further counseling and had discontinued her medication.

The VA Compensation and Pension examination was not accomplished until over 3 years after separation. The CI did not show for the examination scheduled on 17 September 2005.

The Board directed its attention to its rating recommendation based on the above evidence. The VA initially determined the MH disorder to be not-service-connected as she had not appeared for her examination. However, this was later rated at 30%, effective on 16 March 2005, based on the 19 January 2006 examination. This examination noted that she had been working full-time as an administrative assistant since separation without impact from her illness. The PEB rated the condition at 10% using the code 9433 (dysthymic disorder). The Board noted that the CI was working in her career field at the time of the commander’s letter, less than 3 months prior to separation. Following separation, she reported that she worked as an administrative assistant and had no impairment from the MH condition other than being able to deploy. She had stopped both counseling and medications at the time of separation. Her impairment was best described by “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.” This corresponds to a 10% rating IAW VASRD §4.130. The Board noted for the record that a personality disorder is not a ratable condition IAW DoDI 1332.38 E5.1.2.9.2. In addition, as the contribution from the unfitting dysthymia and the personality disorder were not separated by the MEB psychiatrist, any impairment from the personality disorder was considered in the rating for the unfitting dysthymia. After due deliberation in consideration of the preponderance of the evidence, the Board concluded that there was insufficient cause to recommend a change in the PEB fitness determination for the dysthymic disorder 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. In the matter of the dysthymia disorder condition 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 re-characterization of the CI’s disability and separation determination.


The following documentary evidence was considered:

Exhibit A. DD Form 294, dated 20140430, w/atchs
Exhibit B. Service Treatment Record
Exhibit C. Department of Veterans Affairs Treatment Record









XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
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-2014-01997.

         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
cc:
SAF/MRBR

Similar Decisions

  • AF | PDBR | CY2014 | PD-2014-00672

    Original file (PD-2014-00672.rtf) Auto-classification: Approved

    Pre-Separation) ConditionCodeRatingConditionCodeRatingExam Bilateral Tarsal Tunnel Syndrome8799-87250%Tarsal Tunnel Syndrome w/Plantar Fasciitis, Right5276-852510%20030909Tarsal Tunnel Syndrome w/Plantar Fasciitis, Left5276-852510%20030909DysthymiaNot ReviewedDysthymia943310%20030909Other MEB/PEB Conditions x 0 (Not In Scope)Other x 9 RATING: 0%RATING: 50%*Derived from VA Rating Decision (VARD)dated 20031024 ( most proximate to date of separation [DOS]). On the DD Form 2807, Report of...

  • AF | PDBR | CY2014 | PD-2014-02931

    Original file (PD-2014-02931.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    SEPARATION DATE: 20050502 The Board noted that despite medication and talk therapy, the CI continued to demonstrate “consistently poor mood and work performance.” After due deliberation, considering all of the evidence and mindful of VASRD §4.3 (reasonable doubt), the Board recommends a disability rating of 30% for the dysthymic disorder condition. BOARD FINDINGS : IAW DoDI 6040.44, provisions of DoD or Military Department regulations or guidelines relied upon by the PEB will not be...

  • AF | PDBR | CY2014 | PD-2014-02040

    Original file (PD-2014-02040.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 Veterans Affairs Schedule for Rating Disabilities (VASRD) standards to the unfitting medical condition at the time of separation. Examination tests for radicular signs were negative.The VA Compensation and Pension examination on 30 April 2007, a year after separation, recorded thoracolumbar flexion of 30 degrees after repetitive movement.The...

  • AF | PDBR | CY2013 | PD-2013-01158

    Original file (PD-2013-01158.rtf) Auto-classification: Approved

    Although gait revealed a “slight limp right leg,” heel, toe and tandem walking were reportedly normal. At the general medical C&P evaluation 2 weeks after separation, the CI reported he had not consumed alcohol for 3 months, but that he was previously drinking a six pack, a fifth of whiskey or a case of beer daily.At the C&P examination, dated 13 December 2004 (a month after separation), the CI reported an inpatient psychiatric hospitalization at age 16 for mental evaluation in the context...

  • 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 | CY2012 | PD 2012 01500

    Original file (PD 2012 01500.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    Post-Separation) ConditionCodeRatingConditionCodeRatingExam Dysthymic Disorder943310%Generalized Anxiety D/O, Dysthymic D/O, and Panic D/O with Agoraphobia, with Excessive Daytime Sleepiness940050%20071129Generalized Anxiety DisorderCategory 2Panic Disorder w/o AgoraphobiaCategory 2Irritable Bowel Syndrome731910%Irritable Bowel Syndrome with Gastroesophageal Reflux Disease7319-734610%20071210Gastroesophageal RefluxCategory 2Other x 0 (Not in Scope)Other x 320071210 Combined: 20%Combined:...

  • AF | PDBR | CY2012 | PD2012 01738

    Original file (PD2012 01738.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    The Board deliberated and concluded that the CI’s condition had improved after separation; however, the Board’s recommendation is based on the CI’s psychological status at the time of separation. After due deliberation, the Board determined that based on the evidence and IAW VASRD §4.130 at the time of separation, the most appropriate disability rating recommendation was 30%. XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX President Physical Disability Board of Review

  • AF | PDBR | CY2013 | PD2013 00133

    Original file (PD2013 00133.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    The rating for the unfitting dysthymic disorder, generalized anxiety disorder (GAD) and PTSD conditions is addressed below;no additional conditions are within the DoDI 6040.44 defined purview of the Board. There are no separate mental health records available for review outside the narrative summary (NARSUM) and addendum until the VA records well after separation. As noted, the history upon which the VA based this decision is not consistent with the historical record.The Board directed...

  • AF | PDBR | CY2013 | PD-2013-01532

    Original file (PD-2013-01532.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    A significant component of the Board’s decision regarding the PEB’s final memorandum concerning their adjudication of this case is whether there was a separately unfitting and ratable psychiatric condition at service separation.Fibromyalgia is described in the VASRD as widespread musculoskeletal pain and tender points with or without fatigue, sleep disturbance, stiffness, paresthesia, headache, irritable bowel symptoms, depression, anxiety, or Raynaud’s like symptoms.The VASRD does not...

  • AF | PDBR | CY2011 | PD2011-00090

    Original file (PD2011-00090.docx) Auto-classification: Denied

    She was also found unfit for dysthymic disorder and ulcerative colitis. PTSD Condition . The Board discussed at length whether ulcerative colitis was permanently service aggravated and subject to rating or existed prior to service as a condition that is known to have exacerbations that are not related to service and thus not eligible for rating.