BOARD DATE:	  5 September 2013

		DOCKET NUMBER:  AR20120017861 


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, in effect, correction of his records to show he was medically unfit for post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) and traumatic brain injury (TBI) and to change his disability percentage to reflect these additional diagnoses.  

2.  The applicant states he has been reevaluated as a Madigan Fusion Cell case. Soldiers who underwent a medical evaluation board (MEB) at Joint Base Lewis-McChord underwent a forensic psychiatric evaluation instead of the standard clinical psychiatric evaluation.  The Fusion Cell was established to conduct behavioral health clinical reevaluations.  An MEB addendum reflects the results of the clinical evaluation. 

3.  The applicant provides:

* MEB Psychiatric Addendum and letter of diagnostic variance
* Multiple DA Forms 2173 (Statement of Medical Examination and Duty Status)
* National Guard Bureau (NGB) Form 22 (Report of Separation and Record of Service)
* Honorable Discharge Certificate
* Army National Guard (ARNG) Form 23B (ARNG Retirement Points History Statement)
* DA Form 199 (Physical Evaluation Board (PEB) Proceedings)
* Multiple Combat-Related Special Compensation (CRSC) applications and decisions
* DD Form 214 (Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty)
* Orders awarding him the Combat Action Badge
* DA Form 2823 (Sworn Statement)
* Retirement orders
* Multiple Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) rating decisions

CONSIDERATION OF EVIDENCE:

1.  Having had prior service, the applicant enlisted in the Idaho Army National Guard (IDARNG) on 7 April 2003 and he held military occupational specialty 19D (Cavalry Scout).  

2.  He entered active duty on 26 June 2004 and subsequently served in Kuwait/Iraq from 28 November 2004 to 30 October 2005.  He was honorably released from active duty on 22 August 2006 to the control of the ARNG.  

3.  His records contain multiple DA Forms 2173, some of which reconstructed after his release from active duty:

	a.  DA Form 2173, dated 14 July 2005, that shows on 14 July 2005 he reported right shoulder pain.  He stated his initial injury occurred when his right thumb got caught in web gear while putting on his interceptor body armor (IBA) causing his right shoulder to pull/pop during annual training in 2004 and has been aggravated while on active duty.

	b.  DA Form 2173, dated 3 November 2005, that shows on 9 September 2005 he stated he injured his right knee while working on an armored High- Mobility Multi-Purpose Wheeled Vehicle (HMMWV).  He felt his right knee pop and he felt pain with long-distance walking.

	c.  DA Form 2173, dated 5 March 2009, that shows on 2 August 2008 he fell backward into a badger hole during a grenade course and twisted his right knee.

	d.  DA Form 2173, dated 19 December 2007, that shows on 1 November 2007 he was given a positive TBI screen at his Periodic Health Assessment at the IDARNG Soldier Readiness Center.  

	e.  DA Form 2173, dated 22 December 2009, that shows the entry "Service member (SM) returned to Madigan Army Medical Center from deployment and was diagnosed at Behavioral Health with Adjustment Disorder with Mixed Disturbance of Emotions and Conduct.

	f.  DA Form 2173, dated 27 April 2011, that shows on 15 April 2005 while deployed to Kirkuk, he twice suffered an anterior dislocation to his left shoulder, the first happening in April 2005.  

4.  On 2 September 2010, he complained of left shoulder pain status post-surgery and right knee pain status post-surgery.  He underwent a thorough medical examination initiated through his primary care manager for the purpose of an MEB.  His narrative summary shows:

	a.  He recalled his left shoulder being injured in Iraq in 2005 during combat operations.  He was able to continue with his mission despite the injury.  It took until 2008 when he separated his shoulder bracing himself during a fall to be evaluated and subsequently undergo surgery for this shortly thereafter.  He is left-hand dominant and had been left with chronic pain and limitation, unable to lift or carry weight greater than 20 pounds on the left upper extremity. 

	b.  As for his chronic right knee pain, he originally injured his right knee in 2005 in Iraq.  He was a passenger inside a HMMWV when the vehicle made a sudden motion and he slammed into part of the vehicle causing pain and injury.  He reinjured his right knee in 2008 when he fell in limited visibility in a badger hole during unit training.  He fell to his hip and reinjured his knee.  He was evaluated and underwent an orthoscopic meniscus repair in March 2009.  Since this, and despite the post-operative rehabilitation and therapy, he is back to his original level of pain prior to surgery. 

	c.  The VA has already awarded him combined 80-percent (80%) service-connected disability compensation for/at the rate of: PTSD, 50%; left knee strain, 10%; lower back pain, 10%, and right shoulder pain, 20%. 

	d.  On 29 July 2010, he was seen by forensic psychiatry for adjustment disorder with disturbances of emotions and conduct that met retention standards and alcohol dependence that also met retention standards, noting that interference with military duty was an administrative rather than a medical issue.  He was also seen by neuropsychology for cognitive testing and evaluation that found him meeting the criteria for Possible Malingered Neurocognitive Dysfunction that also met retention standards. 

	e.  On 27 April 2010, he was seen by neurology for post-traumatic headaches consistent with migraine headache without aura, most likely exacerbated by medication overuse, poor sleep, and psychiatric comorbidities that met retention standards.  The next day, on 28 April 2010, he was seen by orthopedics for chronic left shoulder pain, status post Bankcart repair; and chronic right knee pain, secondary to patellofemoral syndrome, both of which failed retention standards.  Since he failed the retention standards of Army Regulation 40-501 (Standards of Medical Fitness), chapter 3, paragraph 3-41e(2), he was recommended for referral to a PEB. 

5.  On 5 October 2010, 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 left shoulder pain, status post Bankart repair

X
2.   Chronic right knee pain secondary to right patellofemoral syndrome

X
3.  Adjustment disorder with disruptions of emotions/conduct 
X

4.  Alcohol dependence
X

5.  Post-traumatic headaches consistent with migraine headaches without aura
X

6.  Chronic intermittent right shoulder strain
X

7.  Chronic intermittent left knee strain
X

8.  Chronic left ankle tendonitis
X

9.  Chronic intermittent truncal rash
X

10.  Bilateral pes planus
X

11.  Restless leg syndrome
X

12.  Erectile dysfunction
X

13.  Chronic lumbar myofascial strain
X

6.  The MEB recommended his referral to a PEB.  He did not agree with the MEB's findings and recommendation and submitted an appeal.  His appeal was considered but was found not to contain any medical evidence that would change the MEB findings and recommendation.  The MEB proceedings were approved on 18 November 2010. 

7.  His service record contains multiple VA rating decisions, dated 28 February 2007, 5 January 2010, and 2 February 2011.  The last rating decision was through the Integrated Disability Evaluation System (IDES).  The VA proposed and/or awarded him service-connected disability compensation for/at the rate of:

* left shoulder injury, VA 10%, DES - 10%
* right patellofemoral pain syndrome, VA 10%, DES 10%
* left median and ulnar nerve neuropathy, VA 30%, from 4 May 2010
* PTSD with major depressive disorder and cognitive disorder, VA 50%, from 1 May 2006
* left Achilles tendonitis, VA 10%, from 1 May 2006
* thoracolumbar strain with degenerative disc disease, VA 10%, from 1 May 2006
* patellofemoral syndrome of the left knee, VA 10%, from 1 May 2006

8.  On 13 June 2011, an informal PEB convened and found the applicant's conditions prevented him from performing the duties required of his grade and military specialty and determined that he was physically unfit due to multiple conditions.  The PEB rated his medically-unacceptable conditions under the VA Schedule for Rating Disabilities (VASRD) as follows:  

VASRD Code
Condition
Percentage
5201
Left Shoulder Impairment
20%
5260
Right Patellofemoral Pain Syndrome
10%
5024
Left Ankle Tendonitis
10%
The PEB also considered his other conditions but since those conditions did not fail retention standards and/or were not unfitting, they were not ratable.  The PEB recommended a 40% combined disability rating and permanent disability retirement.  Subsequent to his counseling, the applicant concurred with the PEB's finding and recommendation and waived his right to a formal hearing.

9.  On 22 June 2011, the U.S. Army Physical Disability Agency (USAPDA) published Orders D173-14 placing him on the Retired List in his retired rank/grade of staff sergeant (SSG)/E-6, effective 27 July 2011 by reason of physical disability at the rate of 40%.  Accordingly, he retired on 26 July 2011 and he was placed on the Retired List in his retired rank/grade of SSG/E-6 on 27 July 2011. 

10.  On 28 March 2012, Dr. BO, a psychologist, conducted a cell reevaluation of the applicant's behavioral health to assess his current psychiatric fitness for duty following a previous evaluation in which a forensic behavioral health specialist changed a PTSD diagnosis.  

	a.  Dr. BO proposed a change to the applicant's October 2010 MEB Proceedings to delete the diagnosis of "Adjustment Disorder with disruption of emotions and conduct; meets retention standards" and replace it with the diagnosis of "PTSD, combat related, failed retention standards in accordance with Army Regulation 40-501, paragraphs 3-33b and 3-33c, incurred while entitled to basic pay."   

	b.  He also proposed reinstatement of the diagnosis of Major Depressive Disorder, chronic, in partial remission, failed Army retention standards in accordance with Army Regulation 40-501, paragraphs 3-32b and 3-32c.

	c.  He proposed no diagnosis for cognitive disorders. 

11.  The MEB Addendum shows a behavioral health diagnosis as follows:

	a.  Axis I: PTSD, delayed onset, combat-related, fails retention standards of Army Regulation 40-501, paragraph 3-33, persistence or recurrence of symptoms necessitating limitations of duty or duty in protected environment and persistence or recurrence of symptoms resulting in interference with effective military performance.  Existed Prior to Service (EPTS): Yes, due to death of a 16-year old brother when he was 15 years old and on scene immediately after accident.

	b.  Axis I: Major Depressive Disorder, chronic, in partial remission, fails retention standards of Army Regulation 40-501, paragraph 3-32 due to persistence or recurrence of symptoms necessitating limitations of duty or duty in protected environment and persistence or recurrence of symptoms resulting in interference with effective military performance.  EPTS: No

	c.  Axis II: None

	d.  Axis III: See medical records. 

	e.  Axis IV: recent 6-month old son hospitalization required him to drive long distance to hospital; triggered flashbacks about improvised explosive devices (IEDs) and minor accidents when he swerved off to avoid perceived threat; wife is afraid to leave their two young children with him for fear of anger outbursts or forgetfulness that may endanger the children; recent anger outbursts when he and his wife argued scared the wife. 

	f.  Axis V: PTSD Global Assessment and Functioning GAF) score of 45 and MDD GAF score of 51.

12.  An advisory opinion was received on 7 January 2013 from the USAPDA in the processing of this case.  The USAPDA official stated:

	a.  Dr. BO conducted the cell reevaluation in March 2012.  His assessment is that the applicant has PTSD and major depressive disorder (MDD) which did not meet medical retention standards.  Dr. BO indicated that the applicant's GAF score was 45 for PTSD and 51 for MDD.  While it may be implicit that the doctor supports a finding that PTSD and MDD did not meet retention standards at the time the applicant retired, the doctor does not specifically state this finding.  Neither does he provide any such basis or discussion regarding this implicit conclusion.   

	b.  Dr. BO did not support a diagnosis of TBI (such as cognitive dysfunction).  He did not conduct neuropsychological (NP) testing.  He opined that prior NP testing refuted the cognitive dysfunction diagnosis.  He further opined that "notwithstanding Dr. NRS' opinion that there was no valid cognitive dysfunction due to "probable malingered neurocognitive dysfunction," the lack of any cognitive dysfunction was because the evidence did not clearly meet the criteria for diagnosis of cognitive disorder, NOS.  Instead, Dr. BO indicated that the NP testing results were the result of the applicant's "hostile mindset at the time of the evaluation."  Dr. BO did not address the MEB consultant's finding of Cluster A (paranoid, schizoid, or schizotypal) traits versus PTSD, nor the applicant's ability to perform in a superior manner (except for some physical limitations) in both his military duties and his full time federal technician duties through the time at the MEB (applicant's 2010 assessment and his Noncommissioned Officer Evaluation Reports).  There is no evidence provided in the case that the March 2012 opinion has been vetted and/or reviewed by any another individuals, to include any psychiatrists, nor is there any evidence provided that the opinion was processed in accordance with the MEB requirements contained in chapter 7 of Army Regulation 40-400 (Patient Administration). 

	c.  The MEB case file includes a 14-page psychiatric consultation accomplished by a psychiatrist; with a 6-page neuropsychology clinic report attached.  The chief complaint was as follows: "the service member (SM) was referred for a history of PTSD.  The SM also underwent neuropsychological testing at Madigan Army Medical Center in April 2010 to evaluate his complaints of cognitive difficulties."  Hence, the primary purpose of this consultation was to determine, within the context of an MEB, whether the applicant had PTSD or cognitive disorder that was cause for MEB referral (i.e., that failed retention standards).  

	d.  The 2010 MEB report provides a detailed chronology of the applicant's behavioral health treatment and associated rendered diagnosis through the years.  The report also details the findings of neuropsychological testing (i.e., invalid with reference to findings such as the applicant's responses being "consistent with a greatly exaggerated report of problems most likely designed to create the impression of severe emotional disturbance" and that the responses “imply that he has longstanding pathological personality traits that entail a paucity of positive emotions, introversion, and various negative emotions”). 

	e.  The MEB consultation also addressed the applicant's commander's statement, dated 22 April 2010; tobacco, alcohol, and illicit drug use; family history; and the applicant's mental status/examination.  The GAF was reported as 70 (and based on the applicant's report of excellent duty performance supported by his commander's statement).  

	f.  Based on full consideration of the preceding information presented, the 2010 consultant did not endorse a diagnosis of PTSD or MDD and did not endorse a diagnosis of residuals of TBI.  The MEB consultant indicated that the Cluster A traits had been mistakenly attributed to a diagnosis of PTSD.  The MEB consultant indicated that the applicant reported "excellent duty performance and motivation for continued duty though that may not be sincere."  The consultant/examiner also indicated the applicant's underlying personality traits and associated emotional features tend to be life long and did not appear to have significantly impaired his duty performance.  Whatever the mental health diagnosis would be, the 2010 MEB findings would have held that the diagnosis would have met medical retention standards based on the applicant's 2010 complaints and work history.  

	g.  The 2010 MEB findings were reviewed by two other physicians and the MEB approving authority, another physician.  All reviewers concurred with the MEB findings.  The applicant did not concur with the MEB mental health findings and requested an independent medical review.  The independent medical review, another psychiatrist, confirmed that the MEB mental health findings were correct and supported by the evidence.  All 2010 MEB examiners and reviewers knew of the VA prior diagnosis of PTSD as they completed the MEB findings. 

	h.  An informal PEB found him unfit for his physical condition and permanently retired him at 40%.  His listed mental health condition of adjustment disorder was not unfitting and would have been non-compensable if found unfitting.  After being advised of his rights, he concurred with the PEB findings and waived his right to a formal hearing.  The PEB was aware of the VA diagnosis and the subsequent VA 50% PTSD rating before the PEB rendered their findings in 2011. 

	i.  Based on a full review of all the evidence, the 2010/2011 MEB/PEB findings continue to be supported by the preponderance of the evidence and the findings have not been found to be arbitrary or capricious.  The 2012 opinion does raise some issues regarding the 2010 MEB findings, but does not provide sufficient evidence to overcome the well-researched/well-seasoned findings and opinions that were extensively reviewed by multiple psychiatrists and physicians at the time the applicant was going through the disability process.  The USAPDA opines that the 2012 opinion does not support that the military records of the applicant are clearly in error and/or are required to be corrected.  

	j.  Should the Board determine the 2012 opinion overcomes all of the previous consistent military findings/evidence/opinions, the USAPDA recommends the Board assign the disability percentage that tracks the contemporaneously- assigned VA rating for the applicant's mental health conditions. 

13.  The applicant was provided with a copy of this advisory opinion.  He submitted a rebuttal on 18 February 2013.  He stated: 
* the Board should reject the USAPDA advisory opinion and accept Dr. BO's assessment as well as the VA rating
* he spent more time with Dr. BO during his reevaluation in March 2012 than with all other mental health doctors at Madigan in 2010
* Dr. Bo is from Walter Reed Army Medical Center while the other doctor's concern is to save money rather than tell the truth
* he finds it unprofessional that the Board is using corrupted doctors' evaluations to deny him what he has been diagnosed with by Dr. BO and the VA
* he was on anti-depressant and anxiety medications for a few years and that is how he was able to do his job
* he discussed his issues with his command after his return from deployment but all they did was dangle the MEB in front of him like a carrot
* the 2012 evaluation is the most accurate because he was seeing a psychologist and a psychiatrist at the VA
* Dr. JEB (at Madigan) made bad reports on Soldiers to save the Army money; he only saw her for 8 minutes
* although he agreed to the 40% rating, it was explained to him by a military attorney that he was not going to win the mental health issues with Dr. NRS and Dr. JEB because he was led to believe their decisions were untouchable
* in summary, Madigan falsified the record by deliberately misdiagnosing Soldiers to save money 

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.  

   a.  Paragraph 3–9 provides guidance for the temporary disability retire list (TDRL).  Specifically, it states the TDRL is used in the nature of a "pending list."  It provides a safeguard for the Government against permanently retiring a Soldier who can later fully recover or nearly recover from the disability causing him or her to be unfit.  Conversely, the TDRL safeguards the Soldier from being permanently retired with a condition that may reasonably be expected to develop into a more serious permanent disability. Requirements for placement on the TDRL are the same as for permanent retirement.  The Soldier must be unfit to perform the duties of his or her office, grade, rank, or rating at the time of evaluation.  The disability must be rated at a minimum of 30 percent or the Soldier must have 20 years of service computed under Title 10, U.S. Code, section 1208 (10 USC 1208).  In addition, the condition must be determined to be temporary or unstable.

   b.  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. 

16.  The VASRD, section 4.129, provides information regarding mental disorders due to traumatic stress.  Specifically, it states that when a mental disorder that develops in service as a result of a highly-stressful event is severe enough to bring about the veteran’s release from active military service, the rating agency shall assign an evaluation of not less than 50 percent and schedule an examination within the six-month period following the veteran’s discharge to determine whether a change in evaluation is warranted.

17.  Memorandum, dated 16 April 2013, Subject: Madigan Fusion Cell Cases 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.  The Madigan Fusion Cell conducted clinical evaluations to determine if these Soldiers met appropriate diagnostic criteria.  The MEB Addendum reflects the results of these clinical evaluations. 

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS:

1.  The applicant complained of left shoulder pain and right knee pain, status-post surgery.  He was considered by an MEB in October 2010 that referred him to an informal PEB.  His MEB listed two conditions that failed retention standards and several other conditions that met retention standards.  PTSD and TBI were considered but were neither diagnosed nor listed at the time. 

2.  The PEB found his conditions prevented him from performing the duties required of his grade and military specialty and determined he was physically unfit due to multiple conditions.  The PEB rated him at a combined rating of 40% for left shoulder impairment (20%), right patello-femoral pain syndrome (10%), and left ankle tendonitis (10%).  The PEB also considered his other conditions but since those conditions did not fail retention standards and/or were not unfitting, they were not ratable.  The PEB recommended permanent disability retirement.  Subsequent to his counseling, the applicant concurred with the PEB's finding and recommendation and waived his right to a formal hearing.

3.  In March 2012, he received a reevaluation of his health conditions to assess his current psychiatric fitness for duty following a previous evaluation in which a forensic behavioral health specialist changed a PTSD diagnosis.  This behavioral health reevaluation revealed a diagnosis of:

	a.  PTSD, delayed onset, combat-related, characterized by persistence or recurrence of symptoms necessitating limitations of duty or duty in protected environment and persistence or recurrence of symptoms resulting in interference with effective military performance.  

	b.  Major Depressive Disorder, chronic, in partial remission, characterized by persistence or recurrence of symptoms necessitating limitations of duty or duty in protected environment and persistence or recurrence of symptoms resulting in interference with effective military performance.  

4.  The initial MEB forensic psychiatric evaluation has disadvantaged the applicant in this case.  Therefore, the clinical reevaluation is accepted in lieu of the initial forensic evaluation.  The applicant is entitled to correction of his records to show PTSD as a disabling condition that did not meet retention standards and is rated at 50%, effective 27 July 2011, the date of the applicant's original retirement. 

5.  As a result, the applicant's records should be corrected as recommended below.  The VA uses tables to compute the combined disability.  The highest percentage to the lowest percentage is used.  The highest minus 100% gives the "efficiency" for the highest degree of disability.  Then the second is computed and so on to derive at a combined disability.  The combined rating is then rounded up or down to the nearest 10%.  

6.  The clinical evaluation did not yield a diagnosis of TBI or whether it failed retention standards.  There is insufficient evidence in the record to show the contended condition of TBI was fitting or unfitting, failed retention standards, and the level of functional impairment.  As such, this portion of the applicant's contention is not supported by the evidence and he is not entitled to relief as related to TBI. 

BOARD VOTE:

________  ________  ________  GRANT FULL RELIEF 

___x__  ___x_____  ___x_____  GRANT PARTIAL RELIEF 

________  ________  ________  GRANT FORMAL HEARING

________  ________  ________  DENY APPLICATION

BOARD DETERMINATION/RECOMMENDATION:

1.  The Board determined that the evidence presented was sufficient to warrant a recommendation for partial relief.  As a result, the Board recommends that all Department of the Army records of the individual concerned be corrected:

	a.  amending item 3 of the applicant's DA Form 3947, dated 5 October 2010, to delete the entry "Adjustment Disorder with disruption of emotions and conduct; meets retention standards" and replace it with the diagnosis of "PTSD, combat related, failed retention standards" and "Major Depressive Disorder, chronic, in partial remission, failed Army retention standards"; 

	b.  amending item 8 of the applicant's DA Form 199, dated 6 November 2011, to add VASRD Code 9411, PTSD with MDD, condition has manifested since 2005 and is related to combat exposure or a highly stressful event; his symptoms manifestations have adversely impacted duty performance; rated at 50%;

	c.  amending item 9 of the applicant's DA Form 199, dated 6 November 2011, to show the appropriate combined rating; 

	d.  by voiding Orders D173-14, issued by the USAPDA on 22 June 2011, placing him on the Retired List in his retired rank/grade of SSG/E-6, effective 27 July 2011 by reason of physical disability at the rate of 40%; 

	e.  issuing him new orders retroactively placing him on the Temporary Disability Retired List (TDRL), by reason of temporary disability at the appropriate disability rate effective 27 July 2011, for a minimum period of 6 months; and

	f.  reviewing his pay records and paying him any monies due as a result of this correction.

2.  The Board further determined that the evidence presented is insufficient to warrant a portion of the requested relief.  As a result, the Board recommends denial of so much of the application that pertains to a final disability rating or the PEB to show he was diagnosed with TBI. 



      _______ _   _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)                                         AR20120017861



3


ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


1

ABCMR Record of Proceedings (cont)                                         AR20120017861



13


ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


1