IN THE CASE OF:	  

		BOARD DATE:	  11 June 2014

		DOCKET NUMBER:  AR20140007666 


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 pertaining to a mental health (MH) condition.

2.  The applicant states, in effect, the case file should be reviewed in accordance with the 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 MH diagnosis was changed during that process.

3.  The applicant submitted an application through the Department of Defense (DOD) Physical Disability Board of Review (PDBR) MH Special Review Panel (SRP).

CONSIDERATION OF EVIDENCE:

1.  The PDBR SRP conducted a comprehensive review of the applicant’s submissions and records for evidence of inappropriate changes in the diagnosis of a MH condition during processing through the military disability system.  

2.  The DOD memorandum, dated 27 February 2013, directed the Service Secretaries to conduct a review of MH diagnoses for service members completing a disability evaluation process between 11 September 2001 and
30 April 2012 in order to determine if service members were disadvantaged by a changed diagnosis over the course of their physical disability process.

3.  In the processing of this case, an advisory opinion was obtained from the PDBR SRP and the applicant was provided a copy.

4.  The applicant did not respond to the advisory opinion. 

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS:

1.  After a comprehensive review of the applicant’s case, the SRP determined by unanimous vote that there should be no change of the applicant’s disability and separation determination. 

2.  The SRP reviewed the records for evidence of inappropriate changes in
diagnosis of the MH condition during processing through the Disability Evaluation System (DES).  The available records show the original diagnosis of adjustment disorder was changed to anxiety disorder and back to adjustment disorder (by a service diagnostic variance) during the DES process.  The SRP determined the criteria for the Terms of Reference for the MH Review Project was not met.

3.  The SRP in its deliberations devoted careful attention to the issue of the varying MH diagnoses rendered throughout the DES process and deliberated as to the most accurate depiction of the applicant's condition near the time of service separation.  The core issue in this case was the identification of the correct MH diagnosis that determined if the MH condition was considered a disability; followed by a fitness determination.  The Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) examiner clearly spelled out the reasoning for a resolution of an adjustment disorder, citing the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual for Mental Disorders, Fourth Edition (DSM-IV) criteria of a 6-month stressor-free period.  
The SRP noted in the applicant’s case, the stressors that originally coined that adjustment disorder diagnosis were prevalent in the service treatment record (STR) over 3 years previously remote (November 2007 to February 2011). 

4.  The SRP determined that when reviewed independently, none of the reported stressors were subsequently addressed in the STR or remained a focus in causing adverse issues in relation to a MH condition or adjusting to daily life, long after 2007.  The SRP also determined that when viewed independently, the "financial" and "long work hour" stressors were not subsequently addressed in the STR as causing any further adverse problems in relation to an MH condition or adjusting to daily life after 2007.  Family stress was not originally detailed in 2007 as to any specific parameter; however, there was some emotional detachment from his teenage daughter upon his re-deployment in August 2008. 


5.  The SRP noted additional STR entries revealed a very good relationship with his daughter. While being a single parent did not appear to have an adverse contributing factor in and of itself, but rather in correlation with a command structure that appeared not supportive of the additional demands of parenting and child-rearing.

6.  The SRP agreed that the applicant's post-deployment onset of irritability, agitation, decreased tolerance of people and increased startle response accurately described anxiety and not secondary to a long-standing adjustment to re-deployment.  The SRP discovered that the preponderance of evidence most accurately depicted the applicant's MH diagnosis as anxiety disorder not otherwise specified (NOS) at the time of service separation.

7.  The SRP later considered if the applicant's anxiety disorder could be reasonably justified as separately unfitting and therefore eligible for a service rating.  The SRP agreed that despite the presence of a variety of anxiety symptoms, the evidence reflected minimal adverse symptoms and good duty performance (as related to mental functioning), as well as perfect work attendance without tardiness, in the period of time leading into the DES process.  An MH condition was never profiled and not implicated by the commander's statement.  The commander specifically stated even though the applicant was unable to perform duties of his MOS, due to a "physical" condition, the applicant was still recommended for service retention.  

8.  After due deliberation in consideration of the preponderance of the evidence, the SRP concluded that the applicant's anxiety disorder NOS condition could not be found as unfitting and no disability rating was recommended.

9.  The available evidence shows the SRP’s assessment should be accepted.  

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)                                         AR20040003532



3


ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


1

ABCMR Record of Proceedings (cont)                                  AR20140007666



2


ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


1