Search Decisions

Decision Text

ARMY | BCMR | CY2014 | 20140010501
Original file (20140010501.txt) Auto-classification: Denied


		BOARD DATE:	  23 July 2014

		DOCKET NUMBER:  AR20140010501 


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 mental health diagnosis was changed during that process.

3.  The applicant submitted an application through the DOD Physical Disability Board of Review (PDBR) Mental Health 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 mental health condition during processing through the military disability system.  

2.  The Department of Defense memorandum, dated 27 February 2013, directed the Service Secretaries to conduct a review of mental health 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 to the prior determination.

2.  The SRP considered the appropriateness of changes (if any) in the MH diagnoses and provided remedial recommendations if it is judged that there were any elimination or unfavorable changes in MH diagnoses by the service.  The SRP further considered whether the provisions of the Department of Veterans Affairs Schedule for Rating Disabilities (VASRD) Section 4.129 were applicable to any unfitting MH condition (physical evaluation board (PEB) adjudicated or SRP recommended), and made rating recommendations in accordance with VASRD Section 4.130 (and VASRD Section 4.129 as appropriate). 

3.  The SRP directed attention to its recommendations and its first assessment with regard to the MH condition, under MH Review guidelines, was to judge (based on a preponderance of evidence) whether an MH diagnosis was changed or unfairly eliminated during the Disability Evaluation System (DES) proceedings.  The profile, narrative summary (NARSUM), the medical evaluation board (MEB) and PEBs all listed depression as the MH diagnosis.  The MEB physical listed “History of ‘Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD)’/adjustment disorder” under block 78 recommendations for further exams.  Therefore, the applicant’s case did not appear to meet the inclusion criteria in the Terms of Reference of the MH Review Project.

4.  The SRP later deliberated whether the service MH diagnosis of depression was appropriate.  In this case there were conflicting professional opinions on record, and contradictory evidence for the requisite Diagnostic and Statistical Manual for Mental Disorders, Fourth Edition, Text Revision (DSM IV-TR) criteria.  The applicant’s Post-Deployment Health Reassessment (PDHRA) responses regarding the absence of Criterion A stressors was considered a formidable detractor with respect to the probative value of subsequent subjective historical reports since the stressor questions are straightforward and unequivocal in the PDHRA format, and the responses were recorded shortly after deployment and 

before any secondary gain influence was operant.  Although Criteria B (re-experiencing), C (avoidance), and D (hyperarousal) responses may evolve over time, the Criterion A (stressor) accounting is expected to be a static response.  

5.  The SRP noted the MEB psychiatric opinion was considered reasonable in that regard.  The psychiatric presentation described in the VA Compensation and Pension (C&P) evaluation was also not congruent with the service treatment records evidence of an extended course of symptoms of anxiety and depression with a heavy overlay of external stressors. 

6.  After due deliberation, the SRP agreed that there was not a preponderance of evidence to support a recommendation for changing the MH diagnosis (depression, NOS) as adjudicated by the service.  The SRP then turned to its assessment of the fairness of the PEB’s determination that the established MH condition (or any alternate MH condition) was not unfitting.  The MEB psychiatric opinion, the commander’s opinion, the S2 profile, and the applicant’s concurrence with the overall PEB determination that he was fit for duty are strong arguments against a conclusion that there was an unfitting MH impairment.

7.  After due deliberation in consideration of the preponderance of the evidence, the SRP concluded that there was insufficient cause to recommend a change in the PEB fitness determination for the MH condition.

8.  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)                                  AR20140010501



2


ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


1

Similar Decisions

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2014 | 20140013478

    Original file (20140013478.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    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. The SRP directed attention to its recommendations based on the above evidence and, its first assessment, under MH Review Project guidelines, was to judge whether a ratable MH diagnosis (in this case anxiety and/or depression) was unfairly eliminated during the Integrated...

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2014 | 20140010712

    Original file (20140010712.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    The applicant submitted an application through the DOD Physical Disability Board of Review (PDBR) MH Special Review Panel (SRP). The PDBR SRP conducted a comprehensive review of the applicant's submissions and records for evidence of inappropriate changes in the diagnosis of an MH condition during processing through the military disability system. In the service treatment record notes and at the VA C&P MH exam the applicant reported his main stressor during deployment was separation from...

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2014 | 20140010918

    Original file (20140010918.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    The SRP deliberated whether by a preponderance of evidence a service diagnosis of PTSD could be recommended in this case for a primary MH rating. The SRP agreed that a 100 percent recommendation for total occupational and social impairment at the time of TDRL placement was not indicated. A 70 percent recommendation (occupational and social impairment, with deficiencies in most areas, such as work, school, family relations, judgment, thinking, or mood) was likewise not supported given that...

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2014 | 20140006646

    Original file (20140006646.txt) Auto-classification: Approved

    There was not a preponderance of evidence in support for all of the DSM IV-TR criteria, and the medical evaluation board (MEB) psychiatrist's diagnosis of anxiety disorder, NOS was the only MH diagnosis underpinned by a comprehensive evaluation and sufficiently probative evidence. The analysis by the end-TDRL psychiatrist establishing a progression from anxiety disorder, NOS to PTSD is a reasonable assumption, and was accepted as the conclusion of the SRP majority. The SRP next addressed...

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2014 | 20140006934

    Original file (20140006934.txt) Auto-classification: Approved

    The SRP further considered whether the provisions of the Department of Veterans Affair Schedule for Rating Disabilities (VASRD) Section 4.129 were applicable to any unfitting MH condition (physical evaluation board (PEB) adjudicated or SRP recommended), and made rating recommendations in accordance with VASRD Section 4.130 (and VASRD Section 4.129 as appropriate). The Service evidence made clear that a diagnosis of PTSD was considered, and the medical evaluation board (MEB) psychiatrist...

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2014 | 20140014269

    Original file (20140014269.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    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. Its first assessment, under MH Review Project guidelines, was to judge whether a ratable MH diagnosis (either PTSD or anxiety disorder) was unfairly eliminated during DES proceedings. The SRP next considered whether there was preponderance of performance-based evidence...

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2014 | 20140015391

    Original file (20140015391.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    The applicant also states that his rating for Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD) should have been higher and not rated with his other disabilities because they are different. 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 an MH condition during processing through the military disability system.

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2014 | 20140008914

    Original file (20140008914.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    The applicant requests a review of the military disability evaluation pertaining to a mental health (MH) condition. The diagnosis of anxiety disorder was the only established MH diagnosis in the service treatment records (STR), thus there was no unfavorable change of diagnosis. The SRP's charge was assessing the fairness of the service determination that criteria for the diagnosis of PTSD were not met, not whether an established diagnosis was eliminated.

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2014 | 20140015772

    Original file (20140015772.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    The PDBR SRP conducted a comprehensive review of the applicant's submissions and records for evidence of inappropriate changes in the diagnosis of an MH condition during processing through the military disability system. The SRP next considered if there was evidence in the record to support a recommendation of a diagnosis of PTSD, or any other MH condition, for disability rating at TDRL entry. After due deliberation in consideration of the preponderance of the evidence, the SRP concluded...

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2014 | 20140013480

    Original file (20140013480.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    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. The SRP considered whether a change of the diagnosis to PTSD was recommended. The SRP also agreed that there was not a preponderance of evidence in support of a recommendation to change the service diagnosis from anxiety disorder to PTSD.