IN THE CASE OF:	  

		BOARD DATE:  15 October 2013

		DOCKET NUMBER:  AR20120015788 


THE BOARD CONSIDERED THE FOLLOWING EVIDENCE:

1.  Application for correction of military records (with supporting documents provided, if any).

2.  Military Personnel Records and advisory opinions (if any).


THE APPLICANT'S REQUEST, STATEMENT, AND EVIDENCE:

1.  The applicant requests a review of the military disability evaluation of her mental health condition.

2.  The applicant states, in effect, in accordance with a Secretary of Defense directive for a comprehensive review of members who were referred for a disability evaluation between 11 September 2001 and 30 April 2012 and whose mental health diagnoses were changed during that process, her case file should be reviewed.

3.  The applicant submitted an application to the DOD Physical Disability Board of Review (PBDR) Mental Health Special Review Panel (SRP) with attachments, including a Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Form 3288 (Request for and Consent to Release of Information from Individual's Records).

CONSIDERATION OF EVIDENCE:

1.  Having had prior service in the U.S. Marine Corps (USMC), the applicant enlisted in the Regular Army on 15 July 2004.  She held military occupational specialty 42A (Human Resources Specialist).

2.  In August 2010, she complained of low back pain.  Her Medical Evaluation Board (MEB) Narrative Summary (NARSUM), dictated on 4 August 2010 states:

	a.  She was in good health until working at Fort Leonard Wood, MO in approximately 2006.  She was a mail clerk and was throwing mail bags off the dock.  One of them caught on her wrist.  It twisted her back and caught her between the bags and the dock.  She did not fall, but she did have pain in her low back.  She was seen in the clinic.  Treatment began with conservative measures. She also began to develop some sciatic pain.  She became pregnant and her low back pain was only treated symptomatically as appropriate during her pregnancy. She then resumed physical therapy after her pregnancy, but she stopped because it made the pain worse.  She has had a magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) and conservative treatment.  She is not felt to be a surgical candidate. Because of her continued pain and need for duty restrictions, she was referred to an MEB.

	b.  The first visit was on 9 June 2008, when she was seen in the blue team clinic at Fort Leonard Wood with the complaint of "left-sided lumbar pain X 3 weeks."  She returned 2 weeks later because she was not improving.  She started physical therapy.  She also underwent medication changes.  She continued with some exercise during her pregnancy as appropriate.  Postpartum, she was started in physical therapy again, but this seemed to make her pain worse.  She continued to be seen with no great improvement despite her compliance.

	c.  On 5 February 2010, she underwent an MRI of the lumbar spine that showed subtle disease at L4-5 and L5-S with no central canal stenosis or neuroforaminal narrowing.  On 24 Sep 2009, she had a bone scan that showed a small focus of increased metabolic activity in the left proximal femur, probably representing a small stress fracture or post-traumatic stress-related injury.  She also had stress reaction of the tibias and femurs.

	d.  She has pain on a daily basis in her low back of 4-5/10, although it will flare to 7-8/10 if she stands longer than 15 minutes, sits for 20 minutes, or walks for approximately 1 mile at her own pace.  At that point, she would have to rest.  She feels unstable and uncoordinated; as though when she walks she cannot get the rhythm.  She has a lack of endurance and fatigues easily.  She cannot wear high heels that is something she likes to do when she dressed up in civilian clothing.  She has difficulty with child care of her young children as far as being able to bend, stoop, and crawl around with them as needed.  She has spasms down the left leg and reports that it is palpable when she extends the leg when in the seated position.  She demonstrated this.  Indeed, it can feel like a palpable spasm.  She feels that she loses approximately 50 percent of her range of motion when this occurs.  She also notes that she cannot do some of the social things that she used to do such as dancing.  She often finds she has to ask for help when doing household chores.  She feels she has not regained the usual range of motion of her lumbar spine and is constantly aware of how she moves in order to prevent pain.  Rest and/or heat for 30 minutes at a time will often return her pain to its 4-5/10 level after flares of 7-8/10.  This will happen once or twice a week.  Occasionally, it can be several days before she is back to her usual level.

	e.  If she is released from the military, she would like to return to school and general studies.  She would ultimately like to achieve a bachelor degree in psychology and would like to work in the children's behavioral health field.  She is currently unable to ruck-march, run, jump or do combative missions.  This condition is stable; however, studies have shown that in 5 years, these symptoms will often resolve.  Her prognosis is poor for retention in the military service.  She is unable to move with a full combat load.  Her condition fails Army retention standards in accordance with Army Regulation 40-501 (Standards of Medical Fitness), paragraph 3.39h.  She should be referred to a physical evaluation board (PEB).

3.  On 8 April 2011, an MEB convened and, after consideration of clinical records, laboratory findings, and physical examinations, the MEB found the applicant was diagnosed with:

Diagnosis
Met Retention Standards
Did Not Meet Retention Standards
1.  Chronic low back pain secondary to degenerative joint disease

X
2.  Depressive Disorder, Not Otherwise Specified (NOS)
X

3.  Personality Disorder, NOS
X

4.  Bilateral halux valgus
X

5.  Bilateral pes planus
X

6.  Bilateral planter fasciitis 
X

7.  Bilateral ankle strain
X

8.  Endometriosis
X

9.  Tension headaches
X

10.  Hemorrhoids
X

The MEB recommended the applicant's referral to a PEB.  She was counseled and did not agree with the MEB's findings and recommendation.  She submitted a rebuttal that was considered and forwarded to the PEB.  The MEB was approved by the approving authority on 28 June 2011.

4.  On 11 July 2011, an informal PEB convened and found the applicant's condition(s) prevented her from performing the duties required of her grade and 

military specialty and determined the applicant was physically unfit due to chronic low back pain.  The PEB rated the applicant's medically-unacceptable conditions under the VA Schedule for Rating Disabilities (VASRD) as follows:

VASRD Code
Condition 
Percentage
5242
Chronic low back pain  
20 percent
The PEB also considered the applicant's other conditions but since those conditions did not fail retention standards and/or were not unfitting, they were not ratable.  The PEB recommended a 20 percent combined disability rating and permanent disability retirement.  Subsequent to counseling, the applicant ultimately concurred with the PEB's finding and recommendation.

5.  The applicant was honorably discharged on 26 October 2011 in accordance with Army Regulation 635-40 (Physical Evaluation for Retention Retirement or Separation) chapter 4, in the rank/grade of sergeant (SGT)/E-5 with entitlement to severance pay.

6.   On 24 May 2012, Dr. T.J. El----, PhD, a clinical psychologist, conducted a cell reevaluation of the applicant's behavioral health to assess her current psychiatric fitness for duty following a previous evaluation in which a forensic behavioral health specialist changed a PTSD diagnosis.  Dr. T.J. El---- proposed the:

* deletion of "Depressive Disorder, NOS, Meets retention standards, Existed Prior to Service, Not permanently aggravated by service"
* addition of "Dysthymic Disorder, Meets retention standards, Existed prior to service, Not permanently aggravated by service"
* addition of "Generalized Anxiety Disorder, Meets retention standards; Existed prior to service; Not permanently aggravated by service"
* addition of "PTSD, chronic, Fails retention standards"
* retention of "Personality Disorder, NOS; Meets retention standards; Existed prior to service; Not permanently aggravated by service"

Dr. T.J. El---- provided an MEB Addendum that shows the applicant's behavioral health diagnosis as follows:

* Axis I: PTSD, chronic; Dysthymic Disorder; Generalized Anxiety Disorder
* Axis II: Personality Disorder NOS, Cluster C Features
* Axis III: See medical records
* Axis IV: Relationship problems
* Axis V: Global Assessment of Functioning (GAF) score of 60 (current) and 60 (highest during past year)

7.  In the processing of this case, on 28 January 2013, an advisory opinion was obtained from the U.S. Army Physical Disability Agency (USAPDA).  The advisory official stated: 

	a.  The applicant requests correction of her military records to reflect she had a diagnosis of PTSD at the time of her separation in 2011; that the PTSD did not meet medical retention standards in accordance with Army Regulation 40-501, chapter 3; that said PTSD caused her to be unfit for military service in 2011; and that her military records should be changed to reflect disability retirement instead of disability separation.  In support of her request the applicant provided a new psychiatric MEB addendum, dated 24 May 2012.  This addendum was completed by a psychologist and there is no evidence in the case file that this opinion was reviewed by any physicians or that these new opinions were processed as required by MEB requirements contained in Army Regulation 40-400 (Patient Administration), chapter 7.  This advisory opinion is based on a review of the complete addendum (to Include pages 4 and 5) and replaces the advisory opinion, dated 29 November 2012.

	b.  Dr. T.J. El---- prepared the MEB Psychiatric Addendum.  The report indicates that the applicant has PTSD, Chronic, that does not meet medical retention standards with reference to Army Regulation 40-501, paragraph 3-33c. This paragraph provides that a Soldier with PTSD does not meet retention standards when associated symptoms are persistent or recurrent and result in interference with effective military performance.

	c.  The PTSD Checklist-Military Version (PCL-M) is a tool for assessing whether a veteran has PTSD related to military experiences.  It does not supplant or replace the requirement that a diagnosis must be rendered with reference to Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, 4th Edition (DSM-IV.)  The instructions on that form include the following: "[Put) an "X" In the box to indicate how much you have been bothered by that problem in the last month."

	d.  With respect to this checklist, eight questions refer to feelings, experiences, physical reactions and behaviors manifesting over the past month in response to memories or recollections of a stressful military experience.  Nine refer to psychiatric symptoms experienced over the past month; many not unique to PTSD.  Although Dr. T.J. El---- does list her reasons for currently diagnosing the Soldier's PTSD (at pages 4 and 5 of her report), it appears Dr. T.J. El---- uses this report to opine that the applicant had PTSD at the time she went through her MEB/PEB in 2010/2011 based on symptoms self reported by the applicant that she claims she was experiencing during a month in 2012 and the corresponding score of 66 based upon those reported symptoms.  It appears that the 

psychologist concluded that the applicant had PTSD which failed retention standards in 2011 based solely on her scoring "above the recommended DOD cut-off for PTSD."

	e.   A review of the original MEB case file, to include the MEB report prepared by Dr. B-------ly on 9 February 2011, provides detailed documentation/findings that were based on a review of all of the applicant's medical records for over
5 years and an extensive 3-hour evaluation/interview with the applicant.  It is noted that the original findings were vetted and reviewed by a minimum of
three other physicians and the applicant's appeal of those findings reviewed again by the appellate physician and the findings approved.  The preponderance of the documentation and evaluations completed at the time of the applicant's separation supported those findings and all PEB reviews and findings confirmed that the preponderance of the evidence did "not support" any other findings or conclusions.  For background, it is important to note that some symptoms, whether due to mood disorders (3-32) or due to anxiety, somatoform, or dissociative disorders (3-33) cause a Soldier to not meet retention standards.   Dr. B-------ly concluded that the applicant had depressive disorder, not otherwise specified, and that she met retention standards.  She also indicated that the applicant did not require any profile restrictions.  With respect to the onset of psychiatric issues, Dr. B--------ly indicated that prior to the applicant entering the U.S. Army she was separated from the USMC due to fraudulent enlistment because she did not report her psychiatric history; which included a suicide attempt at age 10 in the setting of a compromised state of mental health for most of her pre-service life due to a highly chaotic, abusive and dysfunctional family of origin.

	f.  In conclusion, the addendum submitted provides limited evidentiary medical foundation from the time the applicant was in the military to support the rendered diagnosis of PTSD, or that the applicant fell below retention standards for this condition at the time she was separated from the military.  Further, the submitted addendum does not provide any description or evidence as to how the original report and findings are incorrect or not supported by the preponderance of the evidence in the case file.  To conclude that there was an error that needs correction in the applicant's military records, this agency would need to, as it appears Dr. El---- did, rely on the applicant's response to 17 questions that relate to problems she experienced over a certain number of months in 2012 to support that both "the original MEB was in error (i.e., that the MEB missed the diagnosis of PTSD); and, that the applicant, at the time she was separated, did not meet retention standards."  Even if one were to argue that the applicant was misdiagnosed, there is no evidence the applicant did not meet retention standards for this condition at the time of her original MEB.  Further, given that 

the applicant had psychiatric issues/diagnoses prior to entering the military, even if the evidence supported that she did not meet retention standards, there is no evidence that the severity of this condition is beyond that which it was at the time she entered into the military.  Army Regulation 635-40, paragraph 6-11, EPTS (Existed Prior to Service) - not service aggravated, and 38 Code of federal Regulation (CFR) 3.310(b) Aggravation of non-service-connected disabilities), are used as references.

	g.  Based on review of the complete case file, there is insufficient evidence to find the MEB/PEB findings were not correct at the time the Soldier was separated from the military.  The subjective and limited documented addendum's opinion does not overcome the vast amount of other evidence in the case file that the applicant did not have an unfitting condition of PTSD when she was separated.  Even if evidence could be produced to support such a diagnosis, the preponderance of the evidence would be that Any such condition met medical retention standards; the condition was not incurred/caused by the military (existed prior to service); and, the condition was not permanently aggravated over and above the pre-existing industrial impairment that she already had and exhibited prior to entering the U.S. Army (natural progression).  Recommend no change to the applicant's military records.

8.  The applicant was provided with a copy of this advisory opinion for information and to allow her the opportunity to submit comments or a rebuttal.  She has since submitted dozens of emails, self-authored statements, statements of support, statements from former supervisors and colleagues, photographs, lists of medications, and other previously-submitted documents (DD Form 214, multiple Congressional correspondence, etc.).  In her undated rebuttal memorandum she stated:

	a.  This memorandum is to stand in for a rebuttal to the advisory opinion that the Board received on 28 January 2012 from the USAPDA.  She would like the Board to recognize that she did have PTSD from a sexual assault/domestic violence incident that occurred while she was entitled to basic pay.  She would also like for the board to recognize that at the time of her separation this condition was unfitting and should have been included in her original MEB.  Therefore, she would like her records to reflect retirement in lieu of medical separation as it currently states.

	b.  The advisory opinion's current basis is from the diagnosis that was made for me from Dr. B--------ey.  This diagnosis and report was evaluated by an investigation from the Army and found to be faulty.  She was then given a new appointment with the fusion cell and saw MAJ E----t to get her PTSD 

reevaluated.  After her reevaluation, she was given the instruction to send the information to this Board to change her records to reflect MAJ E----t's changes and recommendations to her original MEB (which was that the condition existed and was unfitting at the time of discharge).  She is working with her Member of Congress representative to try to get the faulty document out of her records.

	c.  The opinion also states she had psychiatric issues prior to entering the Army.  She learned from her experience in the USMC and did not repeat the same mistake with the Army and received a waiver for her prior mental health concerns.  She had two very significant events take place during her active duty time that contributed to her PTSD:  She was raped during her time on active duty.  She was also trapped in a house by her ex-husband and beat for an extended amount of time, he stripped her naked, and threatened to kill her over and over.  Both of these events were while she was entitled to active duty pay.  To further support that her PTSD did not meet retention standards, her supervisor at the time of her discharge, Mrs. D-----h J-----n, [phone number], can be contacted and confirmed that she was recommended for mental health twice by her chain of command and demonstrated functioning impairments from her condition.

	d.  Her original findings of not having PTSD were incorrect and this was determined through the Army's investigation (please see attached news articles and correspondence with various individuals, including her Senator's representative).  When this investigation was complete, the cases (including her case that went through Madigan Forensic Psych) were reevaluated through the fusion cell (hence where MAJ E-----t's addendum came from).  When this was complete veterans were told to send their records with the addendum to this Board for record corrections.

	e.  She has followed all instructions that were presented to her from the Army concerning this issue.  She would like for the Board to disregard the negative advisory opinion and reinstate her PTSD and deem it unfitting as asserted by MAJ E----t.  She would also like for her record to be corrected reflecting medical retirement instead of medical separation.

9.  On 18 April 2013, the Army Review Boards Agency notified the applicant that on 27 February 2013, the Under Secretary of Defense directed the military services to conduct a comprehensive review of service members who completed a disability evaluation process and whose mental health diagnoses were changed to their possible disadvantage during the process.  The Under Secretary directed this review be conducted by the Physical Disability Board of Review (PDBR) who will in turn provide an advisory opinion to the appropriate Board of 

Correction for appropriate action.  The applicant's case met the criteria above.  As a result, the PDBR would consider all the documentation he previously provided and will also consider her VA records, with her consent, before providing an advisory opinion. 

10.  On 18 and 19 April and 6 May 2013, the applicant completed a VA Form 3288 authorizing the release of information from her records for consideration by the PDBR Mental Health Special Review Panel (SRP).

11.  The PDBR SRP conducted a comprehensive review of the applicant's records for evidence of inappropriate changes in the diagnosis of her mental health condition during processing through the military disability system.  The SRP finding, dated 3 September 2013, that had been forwarded to the applicant and is attached to this case, recommended no change to the applicant's disability and processing determination.  The SRP stated:

	a.  The SRP reviewed the records for evidence of inappropriate changes in diagnosis of the mental health condition during processing through the Disability Evaluation System (DES).  The SRP noted the entry of a PTSD diagnosis in the MEB's DA Form 3947 (MEB Proceedings) that was diagnosed in the VA C&P [Compensation and Pension] psychiatric evaluation of 1 June 2010.  PTSD was transcribed from the general MEB along with the diagnoses of OCD [Obsessive Compulsive Disorder], and MDD and forwarded to the PEB.  However, through the multiple MEB and PEB forms, the PTSD and OCD diagnoses were not adjudicated in the final PEB Administrative Correction (the "corrected" MEB no longer included these conditions).  Therefore, at the time of processing through the DES, mental health diagnoses were changed to the applicant's possible disadvantage during that process.  This applicant did meet the inclusion criteria in the Terms of Reference of the Mental Health Diagnosis Review Project.

	b.  The evidence of the available records show the applicant developed psychological symptoms consistent with a non-specific depressive disorder. There was no combat exposure noted in the record; however, the applicant asserted she experienced trauma symptoms as the result of a sexual assault. The SRP undertook a careful review of the entire records, with special attention as requested by the Army Surgeon General memorandum placed on the Fusion Cell exam and evaluation.  Independent SRP psychiatrist evaluation noted the absence of DSM-IV TR diagnostic criteria for PTSD in the context of the clinical evaluation.  The Fusion Cell exam diagnosed PTSD without providing a description of the traumatic events upon which to base the diagnosis
(criterion A); there was no description of symptoms (criterion B, C, and D), and although the examiner indicated there was functional impairment due to PTSD, there was little evidence in the treatment record to suggest an impairment.  Although the C&P examination recorded a PTSD diagnosis and indicated
DSM IV diagnostic criteria were used, there was no documented evidence that criterion A was met, i.e., trauma exposure with fear for life, and there were no clear delineation of depressive symptoms from symptoms reported as PTSD and OCD; as acknowledged by the examiner.

	c.  The SRP agreed the treatment record supported the applicant was being treated for depression; there was insufficient evidence to suggest the applicant suffered from PTSD or OCD.  There was no evidence the applicant sought treatment for PTSD or OCD.  Therefore, the SRP concluded the preponderance of the evidence did not support the diagnoses of PTSD and OCD, and the most appropriate diagnosis was depressive disorder NOS.  As noted previously, the applicant obtained her Associates Degree in 2010 and continued to work towards a Bachelor's Degree in 2011.  She had not received any mental health treatment for most of 2010 and no clear evidence of treatment beyond 2010.  The commander's statement indicated the applicant was performing duties in her MOS appropriate for her rank, and she completed her tasks on time but noted she had periods of diminished attention affecting her performance only when significantly stressed.  Otherwise there were no difficulties.  The applicant reported and the commander's statement stated she worked well with co-workers and supervisors.  Exhibits from supervisors and a co-worker in the January 2011 timeframe indicating sleep, memory, and concentration problems that affected duty performance were considered by the PEB.  Of note, the applicant received a promotion to SGT/E-5 towards the end of 2011.  The SRP concluded the preponderance of evidence did not support a diagnosis of PTSD or an unfit determination for any mental health condition at the time of evaluation in the DES or prior to separation.  The SRP recommends there be no change of the applicant's disability and retirement determination.

12.  The applicant was provided with a copy of the SRP report. 

13.  A memorandum, subject:  Madigan Fusion Cell Cases, dated 16 April 2013, was initiated by the Deputy Surgeon General, Office of The Surgeon General, in support of the Soldiers reevaluated by the Madigan Fusion Cell:

	a.  From 2007 to 2012, Soldiers undergoing an MEB at Joint Base Lewis-McChord underwent a forensic psychiatric evaluation instead of the standard clinical psychiatric evaluation.  However, clinical, not forensic evaluations are the only recognized type of assessments for routine Integrated Disability Evaluation System cases.  The use of forensic evaluations was not consistent with the processes in place at all other military treatment facilities.  On 7 February 2012, The Surgeon General suspended the use of forensic evaluations during the conduct of MEBs.

	b.  In early 2012, The Surgeon General directed the establishment of a Fusion Cell under the mission command of Western Regional Medical Command to conduct behavioral health clinical reevaluations and begin a redress process for any Soldiers and former service members who may have been disadvantaged by the Madigan Army Medical Center MEB Forensic Psychiatry Service's practices.

14.  Army Regulation 635-40 establishes the Army PDES and sets forth 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.  Only the unfitting conditions or defects and those which contribute to unfitness will be considered in arriving at the rated degree of incapacity warranting retirement or separation for disability.  Paragraph 4-17 provides guidance for PEBs.  Specifically, it states PEBs are established to evaluate all cases of physical disability equitably for the Soldier and the Army.  The PEB is not a statutory board.  Its findings and recommendation may be revised.

15.  Army Regulation 40-501 governs medical fitness standards for enlistment; induction; appointment, including officer procurement programs; retention; and separation, including retirement.  Once a determination of physical unfitness is made, the PEB rates all disabilities using the VASRD. 

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS:

1.  The applicant was considered by an MEB in April 2011 that referred her to a PEB.  Her MEB listed one condition that failed retention standards and several other conditions that met retention standards.  Her only complaint was the chronic low back pain.

2.  The PEB found this condition prevented her from performing the duties required of her grade and military specialty and determined she was physically unfit due to chronic low back pain secondary to degenerative joint disease.  The PEB rated her at a combined rating of 20% for this condition.  The PEB also considered her other conditions but since those conditions did not fail retention standards and/or were not unfitting, they were not ratable.  The PEB recommended separation with entitlement to severance pay.  She was discharged in October 2011. 

3.  The PDBR SRP reviewed all the records for evidence of inappropriate changes in diagnosis of the mental health condition during processing through the disability evaluation system.  The SRP stated:

	a.  The SRP reviewed the records for evidence of inappropriate changes in diagnosis of the mental health condition during processing through the DES.  The SRP noted that through the multiple MEB and PEB forms, the PTSD and OCD diagnoses were not adjudicated in the final PEB.  Therefore, at the time of processing through the DES, mental health diagnoses were changed to the applicant's possible disadvantage during that process.  The applicant did meet the inclusion criteria in the Terms of Reference of the Mental Health Diagnosis Review Project.

	b.  The evidence of the available records shows she developed psychological symptoms consistent with a non-specific depressive disorder.  There was no combat exposure noted in the record; however, she asserted she experienced trauma symptoms as the result of a sexual assault.  The independent SRP psychiatrist evaluation noted the absence of DSM-IV TR (Text Revision) diagnostic criteria for PTSD in the context of the clinical evaluation.  The Fusion Cell exam diagnosed PTSD without providing a description of the traumatic events upon which to base the diagnosis; there was no description of symptoms; and although the examiner indicated there was functional impairment due to PTSD, there was little evidence in the treatment record to suggest impairment.  Although the VA examination recorded a PTSD diagnosis and indicated DSM IV diagnostic criteria were used, there was no documented evidence of trauma exposure with fear for life, and there were no clear delineation of depressive symptoms from symptoms reported as PTSD and OCD; as acknowledged by the examiner.

	c.  The SRP agreed the treatment record supported the applicant was being treated for depression; there was insufficient evidence to suggest she suffered from PTSD or OCD.  There was no evidence she sought treatment for PTSD or OCD.  Therefore, the SRP concluded the preponderance of the evidence did not support the diagnoses of PTSD and OCD, and the most appropriate diagnosis was depressive disorder NOS.  The SRP concluded that the preponderance of evidence did not support a diagnosis of PTSD or an unfit determination for any mental health condition at the time of evaluation in the DES or prior to separation.  The SRP recommends that there be no change of the applicant's disability and retirement determination.

4.  Given the initial MEB proceedings and their subsequent reviews by the MEB approving authority, coupled with the comprehensive review by the USADPDA, 

and the exhaustive review by the SRP, and in view of the totality of the applicant's situation, the SRP findings are accepted as there is no evidence any mental condition of the applicant had affected her overall performance of duties.

5.  In view of the foregoing, the applicant is not entitled to the requested relief.

BOARD VOTE:

________  ________  ________  GRANT FULL RELIEF 

________  ________  ________  GRANT PARTIAL RELIEF 

________  ________  ________  GRANT FORMAL HEARING

____X___  ____X___  ___X__ _  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.



      _______ _  X ______   ___
               CHAIRPERSON
      
I certify that herein is recorded the true and complete record of the proceedings of the Army Board for Correction of Military Records in this case.

ABCMR Record of Proceedings (cont)                                         AR20120015788



3


ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


1

ABCMR Record of Proceedings (cont)                                         AR20120015788



2


ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


1