IN THE CASE OF:	  

		BOARD DATE:	  30 July 2014

		DOCKET NUMBER:  AR20140011220 


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 an 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 responded to the advisory opinion.  In his rebuttal, he stated that during his time at Fort Bragg, NC in late 2009 or early 2010 a major traumatic traffic accident took place at the intersection of the housing development where he resided.  While in his residence, he heard a huge impact and ran outside to assist.  He assisted the injured driver and coordinated emergency response with other residents.  When the responders arrived, he instantly briefed them on the status of the injured driver.  The responders later laid a white sheet over the injured driver who was later declared deceased at the scene.  

5.  He was furious at the responders and urged them to do more for the injured driver, who was member of the housing unit.  He was unable to recall the injured driver’s name and felt terrible that he was not able to do more and the last words the driver heard was his.  The sergeant major in charge of the housing area at that time inquired as to who assisted during the incident in order to recognize and award them for their actions.  

6.  He brought up the accident at his mental health treatment but only in passing.  He felt that it was something he could handle and did not meet the requirements of Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD) since he was not in combat.  He briefly spoke with his counselor about the situation but was later assigned to another physician and his previous physician had other responsibilities.  He wanted to make the Army a long career and applied to the Aviation Warrant Officer Program (AWOP) with hopes of becoming an Army Aviator.  He had accumulated 2,500 hours of flight time before joining and was also inspiring to become an Army astronaut.  He was later denied entry into the AWOP which further impacted his depression and frustration with the Army.  

7.  He also believes the traumatic event that day lingered on as chronic major depression for which he still receives treatments.  He adjusted to his denial of entry into AWOP but not the traumatic event.  He further believes he was wasting away from injury and depression in an occupation that did not utilize his education and that he could have been more of an asset to the military.  He gets depressed because he was unable to contribute to the mission, watch other Soldier’s risk their lives, and the thoughts of the lifeless eyes of the injured driver.

8.  In summary, he does not know if this qualifies for anything but please accept his comments/rebuttal which shows symptoms that could meet the SRP’s criteria for reversal of the PDRB decision. 

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 considered the appropriateness of changes in the applicant's MH diagnoses, the physical evaluation board (PEB) fitness determination; and if unfitting, whether the provisions of the Department of Veterans Affairs Schedule for Rating Disabilities (VASRD) Section 4.129 were applicable, and a disability rating recommendation in accordance with VASRD Section 4.130. 

3.  The SRP also considered the appropriateness of any changes in the applicant's MH diagnoses and a disability rating recommendation in accordance with VASRD Section 4.130.  The medical evaluation board (MEB) forwarded adjustment disorder with depressed mood to the PEB for adjudication.  The PEB adjudicated the applicant for the diagnosis of adjustment disorder with depressed mood.  The SRP observed that the diagnosis did change during the course of therapy from adjustment disorder with depressed mood, to depression, and then back to adjustment disorder with depressed mood.  Therefore, the applicant did appear to meet the inclusion criteria in the Terms of Reference of the MH Review Project.

4.  The SRP reviewed the appropriateness of the change in diagnosis and noted that the diagnosis of adjustment disorder was used by the MEB, PEB, and the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Compensation and Pension examiners.  The SRP determined that there was not a preponderance of evidence to support a recommendation for a change in the service diagnosis of adjustment disorder with depressed mood.  

5.  The SRP also considered if an unfitting MH condition existed at the time of separation.  It observed that limitations from an MH condition were never placed.  The applicant was noted by his commander to be a hard and reliable worker.  The profile was S1.  The MEB determined that the condition was not medically disqualifying. 

6.  After due deliberation in consideration of the preponderance of the evidence, regardless of the diagnosis, the SRP concluded the evidence did not support the presence of an unfitting MH condition at separation and no ratable MH condition was present.

7.  After careful consideration of the available evidence and the applicant’s response to the advisory opinion, 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)                                  AR20140011220



2


ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


1