| Mr. Carl W. S. Chun | Director | |
| Mrs. Nancy L. Amos | Analyst |
| Mr. Samuel A. Crumpler | Chairperson | |
| Mr. John T. Meixell | Member | |
| Ms. Shirley Powell | Member |
APPLICANT REQUESTS: Reconsideration of his request for expunction of his Article 15 and bar to reenlistment from his records; change of his discharge under Army Regulation 635-200, paragraph 16-5 to a disability retirement; and promotion to pay grade E-7 with all due back pay and allowances.
APPLICANT STATES: The applicant defers to counsel.
COUNSEL CONTENDS: That the record contains ample evidence to show the applicant was suffering from a persistent mood disorder that was grounds for referral to a medical evaluation board (MEB). Doctor R___ found there was ample evidence showing the applicant was suffering from a severe major Depressive Disorder as early as 11 August 1994. On that date, the applicant was diagnosed by clinical psychologist Doctor D___ with Major Depressive Disorder, Single Episode, Severe without Psychotic Features.
Counsel further contends that Doctor R___ also found that the disorder so affected the applicant's decision-making process as to negate any voluntary aspect of his separation request or behavior resulting in the imposition of the Article 15. This position is supported by the Board of Veterans Appeals decision of 13 November 2001 that the applicant was suffering from a Major Depressive Disorder that was so severe as to merit a 70 percent disability rating. The Board previously erred in finding that the applicant did not suffer from a medically unfitting condition.
NEW EVIDENCE OR INFORMATION: Incorporated herein by reference are military records which were summarized in a memorandum prepared to reflect the Board's original consideration of his case on 9 June 1999 (AR1999016935) and in a memorandum prepared to reflect the Board's reconsideration of his case on 27 September 2001 (AR2001051903).
A narrative from Doctor R___, dated 22 February 2002; a letter from Doctor D___, dated 5 February 2002; and the Board of Veterans Appeals decision dated 13 November 2001 are provided as new evidence not previously available.
In a letter dated 28 September 1994, Doctor D___ indicated that the applicant had been seen by him on four occasions with rapidly deteriorating functioning. Test results indicated the applicant was a depressed, irritable, and highly suspicious individual. He indicated the test results were valid and the applicant did not present as faking or malingering. The letter also indicated the applicant's test results "indicate a highly responsible individual, nonetheless, who accepts responsibility for his actions."
On 13 November 2001, the Board of Veterans' Appeals increased the applicant's 50 percent rating for Major Depression with Psychotic Features to 70 percent from 10 June 1995 to 7 September 1997. The Board of Veterans' Appeals also entitled him to a total disability rating for compensation based on unemployability from 10 June 1995 to 7 September 1997.
By letter dated 5 February 2002, Doctor D___ stated that the applicant was evaluated in August 1994 and test results indicated a major depression. He stated that diagnosis most certainly affected the applicant's overall functioning with regard to thoughts, behaviors, and feelings in a negative manner, impeding his ability to function in a normal fashion.
DISCUSSION: Considering all the evidence, allegations, and information presented by the applicant, together with the evidence of record, applicable law and regulations, it is concluded:
1. In order to justify correction of a military record the applicant must show to the satisfaction of the Board, or it must otherwise satisfactorily appear, that the record is in error or unjust. The applicant has failed to submit evidence that would satisfy this requirement.
2. The Board has considered Doctor R___'s current evaluation of the applicant's condition at the time he was separated from the Army.
3. The Board also notes that in February 2002, Doctor D___ indicated the applicant had been diagnosed with a major depression, such diagnosis most certainly affecting his thoughts, behaviors, and feelings in a negative manner.
4. However, in September 1994 Doctor D___ stated the applicant's test results "indicate a highly responsible individual, nonetheless, who accepts responsibility for his actions."
5. The Board concludes that the currently provided evidence fails to reconcile how the applicant, determined by competent medical authority at the time to be a highly responsible individual who accepted responsibility for his actions, could be found to be unfit for military duty.
6. The overall merits of the case, including the latest submissions and arguments, are insufficient as a basis for the Board to reverse its previous decision.
7. In view of the foregoing, there is no basis for granting the applicant's request.
DETERMINATION: The applicant has failed to submit sufficient relevant evidence to demonstrate the existence of probable error or injustice.
BOARD VOTE:
________ ________ ________ GRANT
________ ________ ________ GRANT FORMAL HEARING
__sc___ __jm____ __sp____ DENY APPLICATION
| CASE ID | AR2002080854 |
| SUFFIX | |
| RECON | |
| DATE BOARDED | 20030610 |
| TYPE OF DISCHARGE | |
| DATE OF DISCHARGE | |
| DISCHARGE AUTHORITY | |
| DISCHARGE REASON | |
| BOARD DECISION | DENY |
| REVIEW AUTHORITY | |
| ISSUES 1. | 108.00 |
| 2. | |
| 3. | |
| 4. | |
| 5. | |
| 6. |
ARMY | BCMR | CY2003 | 03099080C070212
An 11 July 2003 medical record indicates that the applicant had been admitted to a VA medical clinic and that he was discharged on 11 July 2003 with a discharge diagnosis of major depressive disorder, severe, with psychotic That the applicant was treated for depression is noted as is the diagnoses provide by a VA clinical psychologist subsequent to his discharge; however; the MEB did not include a diagnose of depression in its findings and there is no evidence that this condition was...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2015 | 20150003185
Counsel states: * the applicant had several serious medical conditions that, under the governing regulations, should have rendered him unfit and medically retired due to, but not limited to, PTSD and major depressive disorder with psychotic features * the governing regulations, Army Regulation (AR) 40-501 (Standards of Medical Fitness) and AR 635-40 (Physical Evaluation for Retention, Retirement, or Separation), rebut the presumption of regularity * the applicant had much more than a mere...
CG | BCMR | Disability Cases | 1997-115
His diagnoses on discharge were reported as follows: “1. VIEWS OF THE COAST GUARD On August 18, 1999, the Chief Counsel of the Coast Guard recommended that the Board deny the applicant the requested relief. 1995), indicates that the Commandant’s decision was justified because the applicant “was not treated or rated for [paranoid schizophrenia] while serving on active duty.” The Chief Counsel also stated that the apparent contradiction between the VA’s findings and those of the Coast Guard...
AF | PDBR | CY2010 | PD2010-00880
VA psychiatric outpatient notes proximate to separation indicate the CI’s condition deteriorated significantly at that time, and he was diagnosed with PTSD in addition to bipolar disorder four days prior to separation. RECOMMENDATION : The Board recommends that the CI’s prior determination be modified as follows: TDRL at 50% for six months following CI’s prior medical separation (minimum of 50% IAW §4.129) and then a permanent 50% disability retirement as below. Absent the requirement for...
AF | BCMR | CY2007 | BC-2006-03480
The remaining relevant facts pertaining to this application, extracted from the applicant’s military records, are contained in the letter prepared by the appropriate office of the Air Force at Exhibit C. ________________________________________________________________ AIR FORCE EVALUATION: The BCMR Medical Consultant opines no change in the records is warranted. The complete BCMR Medical Consultant evaluation is at Exhibit...
CG | BCMR | Disability Cases | 2002-072
He stated that DVA ratings are not determinative in military disability cases. Thus, contrary to the Coast Guard’s contention that the medical evidence supports the thirty percent disability rating, the Board finds that evidence in the medical record demonstrates that the applicant is entitled to a fifty percent rating for major depressive disorder. However, to the extent that the Coast Guard uses DOD Instruction 1339.32 to “supplement the terminology” for impairment, the applicant’s...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2007 | 20070006528
It was their conclusions, based on her history and now this characteristic spell with a normal EEG (which would not be possible in a generalized seizure as she had), that they were psychogenic seizures. However, there is no evidence of record to show that either the applicants migraines or depression rendered her unfit for duty. Contrary to the contention of counsel for the applicant in her appeal to the findings of the formal PEB, the evidence of record did show that the applicant...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2007 | 20070006528
Once a Soldier is determined to be physically unfit for further military service, percentage ratings are applied to the unfitting conditions from the VASRD. However, there is no evidence of record to show that either the applicant’s migraines or depression rendered her unfit for duty. Contrary to the contention of counsel for the applicant in her appeal to the findings of the formal PEB, the evidence of record did show that the applicant suffered from an industrial impairment.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2007 | 20070006528C080213
It was their conclusions, based on her history and now this characteristic spell with a normal EEG (which would not be possible in a generalized seizure as she had), that they were psychogenic seizures. However, there is no evidence of record to show that either the applicants migraines or depression rendered her unfit for duty. Contrary to the contention of counsel for the applicant in her appeal to the findings of the formal PEB, the evidence of record did show that the applicant...
AF | PDBR | CY2012 | PD2012 01738
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