IN THE CASE OF:	  

		BOARD DATE:	  6 August 2014

		DOCKET NUMBER:  AR20140011600 


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 responded to the advisory opinion.  In his rebuttal, he stated that he was requesting reconsideration of the conditions identified on his Physical Evaluation Board (PEB) as being combat related.  He served with honor in Iraq in 2008 with the 118th Infantry.  He performed his duties; however, at the same time he was depressed and afraid that he would be killed at any time and would be unable to return to his family and his homeland of American Samoa.  He does not think there was anyone who did not think this way.  

5.  He stated that every time he went outside the wire he would always tell himself that this was it.  Due to his deployment in Iraq, the Improvised Explosive Devices (IED’s), firefights, and exploding munitions, he developed tinnitus and currently has severe ringing of the ears.  

6.  The applicant now asks that the Board grant him his request to show that his conditions are combat related.  He never had these conditions prior to his deployment to Iraq.  He received medical care while serving on active duty and after his return from Iraq.  He was diagnosis with these conditions.  He now knows the difference between combat related and service connected.  The reason why he did not respond right away when he received information of his status was due to the tsunami which occurred in his homeland and his family needed him right away.

7.  In summary, he kindly asks that the Board reconsider his request.

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS:

1.  The issues the applicant raises in his rebuttal to the advisory opinion are not within the purview of this specific review of his case.  He may submit a separation request for correction of records to address those issues.

2.  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.

3.  The SRP reviewed the records for evidence of inappropriate changes in diagnosis of the applicant's MH condition during processing through the military Disability Evaluation System (DES).  The available evidence shows a diagnosis 

of a major depressive disorder (MDD) was appropriately and consistently rendered by providers in the military DES and no change to that diagnosis was made at any time.  The SRP agreed the applicant did not meet the inclusion criteria in the Terms of Reference of the MH Review Project.  

4.  The SRP reviewed the file for evidence of a “highly stressful event” as a causal factor in the applicant’s MDD and concluded there was insufficient evidence that a highly-stressful event severe enough to bring about the applicant's release from active military service occurred and that the application of the Department of Veterans Affairs Schedule for Rating Disabilities (VASRD) Section 4.129 was not appropriate in this case.

5.  The SRP also reviewed the file for evidence the PEB should have rated the applicant’s MH disability higher than the 10 percent based on VASRD Section 4.130 criteria at the time of separation.  There was no evidence to support “occupational and social impairment with occasional decrease in work efficiency and intermittent periods of inability to perform occupational tasks,” as required for the 30 percent disability rating.  

6.  The SPR noted the narrative summary (NARSUM) documented a Global Assessment of Functioning (GAF) consistent with mild impairment, while the service treatment records and the Compensation and Pension (C&P) exam documented a slightly lower GAF, just meeting the GAF criteria for a “moderate” impairment.  The SRP reconciled this difference by noting the commander’s statement that clearly documented the applicant had effective work relationships, was accountable and dependable at all times, and he never missed formations and performed his assigned duties well.  Of the six symptoms delineated under the 30 percent rating criteria, the applicant exhibited only two proximate to separation.  The evidence also supported that the applicant was evaluated for traumatic brain injury (TBI), but no TBI was present. 

7.  After due deliberation in consideration of the preponderance of the evidence, the SRP concluded, considering all of the evidence and mindful of VASRD Section 4.3 (reasonable doubt), there was insufficient cause to recommend a change in adjudication for the MDD condition.

8.  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)                                  AR20140011600



2


ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


1