RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


      IN THE CASE OF:


      BOARD DATE:        27 March 2007
      DOCKET NUMBER:  AR20060007977


      I certify that hereinafter is recorded the true and complete record
of the proceedings of the Army Board for Correction of Military Records in
the case of the above-named individual.

|     |Mr. Gerard W. Schwartz            |     |Acting Director      |
|     |Mr. Joseph A. Adriance            |     |Analyst              |


      The following members, a quorum, were present:

|     |Mr. Kenneth L. Wright             |     |Chairperson          |
|     |Mr. Chester A. Damian             |     |Member               |
|     |Ms. Ernestine R. Fields           |     |Member               |

      The Board considered the following evidence:

      Exhibit A - Application for correction of military records.

      Exhibit B - Military Personnel Records (including advisory opinion,
if any).

THE APPLICANT'S REQUEST, STATEMENT, AND EVIDENCE:

1.  The applicant requests, in effect, a change in his disability rating
from
10 percent (%) to 30% and placement on the Retired List.

2.  The applicant states, in effect, that his disability rating of 10% for
his Post Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD) should be changed to 30% and as a
result, he should be placed on the Retired List with a 40% disability
rating given his 10% disability rating for a back condition.

3.  The applicant provides Medical Evaluation Board (MEB) and Physical
Evaluation Board (PEB) proceedings and medical treatment records in support
of his application.

COUNSEL'S REQUEST, STATEMENT AND EVIDENCE:

1.  Counsel (Disabled American Veterans) requests, in effect, that the
applicant's record be corrected to show he received a 30% disability rating
for his PTSD and a 10% rating for chronic low back pain.

2.  Counsel states, in effect, that the medical evidence shows the
applicant received a GAF score of 55 for his PTSD condition and in
accordance with the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual (DSM.IV), he should
have been rated at least at 30% by the PEB and placed on the Temporary
Disability Retired List (TDRL). Based on all the symptoms cited in the
applicant's record, he should have actually been rated at 50% because the
symptoms reflect a person with a much more severe GAF than presently
assigned, and the applicant's true GAF should have been between 41 and 50,
which should have allowed assignment of a 50% disability rating for PTSD.


3.  Counsel provides a statement in support of the application.

CONSIDERATION OF EVIDENCE:

1.  The applicant's record shows that on 26 March 2001, he enlisted in the
United States Army Reserve (USAR) for eight years.  He was trained in
military occupational specialty (MOS) 63B (Light Wheel Vehicle Mechanic).

2.  While serving as a member of a Troop Program Unit (TPU) of the USAR,
the applicant was ordered to active duty and deployed to Iraq in February
2004.  In September 2004, he was returned to the United States without his
unit due to injuries to his back and left leg, and was assigned to the
Medical Holding Company, Walter Reed Army Hospital, Washington D.C.
3.  On 12 June 2005, the applicant was issued a Physical Profile based on
his medical conditions of chronic neck, low back, and left hip pain.  His
PULHES (Physical, Upper, Lower, Hearing, Eyes, Psychiatric) evaluation was
133111, the 3s were assigned for Upper and Lower extremities and a 1 (No
psychiatric pathology, may have history of a transient personality
disorder) was assigned for psychiatric.

4.  On 17 February 2006, a Medical Evaluation Board (MEB) was completed on
the applicant and resulted in his being diagnosed with a PTSD (major
depressive disorder-single episode), obstructive sleep apnea, and chronic
low back pain not meeting medical retention standards.  The MEB referred
the applicant's case to a Physical Evaluation Board (PEB) for evaluation.

5  On 21 February 2006, the applicant concurred with the MEB findings and
recommendations.

6.  On 9 March 2006, a PEB found the applicant unfit based on his PTSD and
his low back pain.  The PEB rated each of these conditions at 10 percent,
for a total of 20 percent, and recommended separation with severance pay.

7.  On 20 March 2006, the applicant non-concurred with the findings and
recommendation of the informal PEB and requested a formal hearing.

8.  On 12 April 2006, after consulting with legal counsel, the applicant
waived his right to a formal hearing; however, he still non-concurred with
the PEB findings.

9.  On 13 April 2006, the applicant's case was reviewed by the United
States Army Physical Disability Agency (USAPDA), which determined the PEB
findings were supported by a preponderance of the evidence.

10.  On 26 April 2006, a statement was provided by a staff sergeant that
indicated the applicant was not required to work more than four hours a
day.

11.  On 5 May 2006, the USAPDA again reviewed the applicant's case, with
specific attention given the 26 April 2006 third-party statement.  However,
the USAPDA found the new information did not require a change to the PEB's
findings.

12.  On 15 May 2006, the applicant was separated with severance pay.

13.  During the processing of this case, an advisory opinion was obtained
from the Deputy Commander, USAPDA.  This official indicated that the MEB
indicated the applicant informed his psychiatrist that he avoided reminders
of his combat experiences, did not like crowds, had difficulty sleeping,
was irritable, had difficulty concentrating, had an exaggerated startle
response, and had a depressed mood and low energy.  Hospitalization was not
required.  The applicant indicated he felt numb and described difficulties
with his family.  The psychiatrist noted that the applicant had "greatly
improved" while on Wellbutrin, but apparently the Wellbutrin was
discontinued recently by another physician.

14.  The USAPDA Deputy Commander further indicated that the MEB described
the applicant's industrial impairment as "definite" and indicated the
applicant would be unable to work part-time in civilian employment in a
position commensurate with his military pay grade.  The psychiatrist and
MEB comments did not reflect that they had observed any of the applicant's
reported difficulties and there is no indication that his ability to
function among people or in the workplace was ever observed or discussed
with his supervisors.

15.  The USAPDA advisory opinion goes on to indicate that the applicant's
prior commander and supervisor indicated that during the period of
deployment until 2005, the applicant's back pain limited his ability to
perform physical tasks, but he was fully able and capable of performing all
other duties and missions.  The medical hold commander indicated that on 17
January 2006, the applicant was performing satisfactory duties while
assigned to his unit and was capable of performing duties within the limits
of his profile.  The profile listed back pain as the sole condition which
required restrictions and only related physical limitations.

16.  On 1 March 2006, a clarifying electronic mail (e-mail) message was
provided by a colonel, which indicated the applicant was working at the
Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) IT department, and had been working six
hours a day, which was recently reduced to two hours per day due to back
pain, his only profile restriction.  On 26 April 2006, another supervisor
attempted to clarify by stating the applicant had only been working four
hours per day.

17.  The USAPDA advisory opinion also indicates that in deciding the
applicant's disability percentage, the PEB weighed all the evidence in the
case file and determined the most appropriate percentage.  Factors that
were used in arriving at the disability percentage were the guidelines in
the Veterans Administration Schedule of Rating Disabilities (VASRD),
Department of Defense Instruction (DODI) 1332.39, section E2.A1.5.1 and
USAPDA Policy Memorandum #7, dated 28 February 2005.

18.  The opinion further states that the DODI and policy memorandum
indicate that industrial adaptability remains the primary focus in rating
Soldiers for mental disorders.  The issue of social adaptability can be
relevant to the rating process only as it affects industrial adaptability.
The VASRD and DODI give further guidance regarding some suggested criteria
which often use words of art (definite, etc) to assist in rating mental
conditions.  However, these guidelines found in the VASRD and DODI are
still based upon the foundation of industrial limitations and an opinion of
the Soldier's industrial limitations, expressed in a one word description,
is not controlling or mandates a specific rating.

19.  This USAPDA official further states that the MEB and psychiatrist's
comments are opinions based on office observations and comments provided to
them by the Soldier.  These are valuable pieces of medical evidence, but
such evidence is still based on opinion and is not objective.  The MEB also
includes objective evidence relating to how the Soldier is actually
performing his duties.  In the applicant's case, the MEB subjectively
opined that the Soldier would most likely have limitations in a civilian
industrial environment.  However, the MEB also provided objective evidence
indicating the applicant was a good worker even after he hurt his back in
Iraq and that he continued to perform duties satisfactorily; except for
some physical (not mental) limitations.  His official medical profile had
no restrictions or limitations because of his mental diagnosis, and the
only reason his work hours were reduced was because of his back pain.

20.  The USAPDA official opines that the PEB also could come to some
reasonable conclusions, based on the performance data, that the applicant,
notwithstanding his claims of discomfort and depression, could and did
present himself as a noncommissioned officer (NCO) in proper uniform each
day; went to work and medical appointments in a timely manner without
escorts or any noted difficulties; followed instructions; completed
assigned tasks; worked well with and for others; and could be around large
groups of people.  The fact the Soldier expressed discomfort or a desire to
not have to do these things does not result in a finding of industrial
impairment when he showed he could control his anxieties and discomfort and
do what was required of him.  Being around the military most likely
heightened the applicant's feeling of being uncomfortable.  However, such
feelings were clearly being adequately controlled by the applicant and
would be less intrusive in the pure civilian industrial environment.

21.  The USAPDA Deputy Commander opines that based on all the evidence
(medical, performance, objective and subjective) the PEB found, by a
preponderance of the evidence, that the applicant could adequately perform
satisfactorily in an industrial environment and found his industrial
limitations to be mild.  The contention of the applicant and his counsel
that the GAF scores indicated the severity of his condition and should have
resulted in a 30 to 50 percent disability rating for PTSD; however, these
scores are only a very small part of the subjective medical opinion
evidence and GAF scores are not listed by the VASRD or DODI as significant
criteria that must be used to rate a mental disability.  He finally
concludes the PEB findings were supported by a preponderance of the
evidence, were not in violation of any rules or directives, and were not
arbitrary or capricious.  As a result, he recommends the applicant's
records remain unchanged.

22.  On 20 February 2007, the applicant was provided a copy of the USAPDA
advisory opinion in order to have an opportunity to respond to its
contents.  To date, he has failed to reply.

23.  DODI 1332.39 implements policy, assigns responsibility, and prescribes
procedures for rating disabilities of service members determined to
physically unfit and who are eligible for disability separation or
retirement.  Enclosure 2 provides special instructions and explanations for
VASRD codes.  Paragraph E2.A1.5.1 contains guidance on series codes 9200-
9511 (Metal Disorders).  It states, in pertinent part, that loss of
function is the principal criterion for establishing the level of
impairment resulting from mental illness.  Loss of function is reflected in
impaired social and industrial adaptability.

24.  Army Regulation 635-40 (Physical Evaluation for Retention, Retirement,
or Separation) establishes the Army Physical Disability Evaluation System
and sets forth the policies, responsibilities, and procedures that apply in
determining whether a Soldier is unfit because of physical disability to
reasonably perform the duties of his or her office, grade, rank, or rating.
 If a Soldier is found unfit because of physical disability, this
regulation provides for disposition of the Soldier according to applicable
laws and regulations.

25.  Appendix B of the disability regulation provides guidance on the Army
application of the VASRD.  It states, in pertinent part, that percentage
ratings in the VASRD represent the average loss in earning capacity
resulting from these diseases and injuries. The ratings also represent the
residual effects of these health impairments on civil occupations.  Not all
of the general policy provisions of the VASRD apply to the Army.  Paragraph
B-107 contains guidance on mental disorders.  It states that the loss of
function is the principal criterion for establishing the level of
impairment resulting from mental illness.  Loss of function is reflected in
impaired social and industrial adaptability.  When assessing loss of
function, refer to the Soldier's social and industrial adjustment before
his or her diagnosed psychiatric illness.  Carefully review all pertinent
information provided by the MEB examining physicians and other competent
medical authorities before arriving at a final determination.  When there
are differences in the information, resolve the differences before making a
rating decision.  Show clearly in the record of proceedings the action
taken to resolve these differences.

26.  The disability regulation defines a mild mental disorder as one which
displays minimal signs of symptoms with probing, may require medication or
psychotherapy, especially during times of stress, adequate job adjustment,
and adequate social adjustment.  Mild cases are rated at 10%.

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS:

1.  The contention of the applicant and counsel that the applicant's PTSD
condition supported a disability rating of 30% from the PEB was carefully
considered.  However, there is insufficient evidence to support this claim.


2.  The evidence of record confirms the applicant was properly processed
through the PDES and that he received disability ratings of 10% for a back
condition and 10% for a PTSD.  The USAPDA reviewed the applicant's PEB
twice and determined the findings of the PEB were supported by a
preponderance of the evidence.  A USAPDA advisory opinion further explains
that the applicant's PTSD was considered a mild case and was rated at 10%
based on the applicant's demonstrated ability to function with the PTSD,
and after determining that the applicant's duty performance, while being
limited for physical reasons based on his back condition, were not limited
by his PTSD mental condition.  As a result, the 10% rating based on his
limited loss of function appears to have been the appropriate rating.

3.  The evidence of record clearly shows the PEB and USAPDA findings and
recommendations were based on a preponderance of the evidence based on all
the available medical evidence provided by the MEB, and associated evidence
related to the applicant's ability to function.  As a result, it appears
all requirements of law and regulation were met, and that the rights of the
applicant were fully protected throughout his PDES processing.  There is no
evidence that suggests the PEB findings were arbitrary or capricious.

4.  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.

BOARD VOTE:

________  ________  ________  GRANT FULL RELIEF

________  ________  ________  GRANT PARTIAL RELIEF

________  ________  ________  GRANT FORMAL HEARING

__KLW __  __CAD__  __EJF___  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.




                                  _____Kenneth L. Wright____
                                            CHAIRPERSON



                                    INDEX

|CASE ID                 |AR20060007977                           |
|SUFFIX                  |                                        |
|RECON                   |                                        |
|DATE BOARDED            |2007/03/27                              |
|TYPE OF DISCHARGE       |HD                                      |
|DATE OF DISCHARGE       |2006/05/15                              |
|DISCHARGE AUTHORITY     |AR 635-40                               |
|DISCHARGE REASON        |Disb-Severance Pay                      |
|BOARD DECISION          |DENY                                    |
|REVIEW AUTHORITY        |Mr. Schwartz                            |
|ISSUES         1.       |100.0000                                |
|2.                      |                                        |
|3.                      |                                        |
|4.                      |                                        |
|5.                      |                                        |
|6.                      |                                        |


-----------------------
[pic]