IN THE CASE OF
BOARD DATE: 6 August 2014
DOCKET NUMBER: AR20140011767
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 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 applicant's disability and retirement determination.
2. The SRP considered the appropriateness of changes in the MH diagnoses, whether the provisions of the Department of Veterans Affairs Schedule for Rating Disabilities (VASRD) section 4.129 were applicable, and whether a disability rating recommendation in accordance with VASRD section 4.130.
3. The SRP reviewed the records for evidence of inappropriate changes in diagnosis of the MH condition during processing through the Disability Evaluation System. The SRP determined that the MH diagnosis was not changed to the applicants possible disadvantage in the disability evaluation. Therefore, the applicant did not meet the inclusion criteria in the Terms of Reference of the MH Review Project.
4. The SRP considered if there was evidence for a VASRD section 4.130 rating higher than 50 percent at time of placement on the Temporary Disability Retired List (TDRL). The next higher rating requires Occupational and social impairment, with deficiencies in most areas, such as work, school, family relations, judgment, thinking, or mood. The SRP agreed that the evidence just described is not consistent with the deficiencies in most areas stipulation of the higher rating. Therefore, a rating higher than 50 percent at the time of entry on TDRL was not supported.
5. The SRP turned its attention to a rating recommendation at the time of removal from the TDRL. As previously noted, the TDRL re-evaluation narrative summary (NARSUM) exam was not in evidence and there was no other available civilian or VA evidence proximal to the time of removal from the TDRL. The SRP noted that the Physical Evaluation Board (PEB) form cited a 70 percent rating. The SRP concluded that this data was derived from the NARSUM, and strongly supported the 70 percent rating. The SRP agreed that a higher rating at the time of removal from TDRL was not supported.
6. After due deliberation, considering all of the evidence and mindful of VASRD section 4.3, the SRP concluded that there was insufficient cause to recommend a change in the PEB adjudication for the Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder condition.
7. 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 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) AR20140011767
2
ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
1
ARMY | BCMR | CY2014 | 20140003670
The SRP reviewed the records for evidence of inappropriate changes in diagnosis of the MH condition during processing through the military disability evaluation system and determined the MH diagnosis was not changed to the applicant's possible disadvantage in the disability evaluation. The SRP questioned the C&P examiner's conclusion regarding financial management competency, given the subsequent assessment and conclusions by the NARSUM psychiatrist (including a Global Assessment of...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2015 | 20150010645
Application for correction of military records (with supporting documents provided, if any). The PDBR SRP conducted a comprehensive review of the applicants submissions and records for evidence of inappropriate changes in the diagnosis of an MH condition during processing through the military disability system. The SRP agreed that the Physical Evaluation Board (PEB) adjudication of unfitting post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) was supported by the evidence and application of the...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2014 | 20140007373
The SRP deliberated whether there was evidence for a VASRD Section 4.130 rating higher than 50 percent at the time of placement on the TDRL. The pre-TDRL VA examiner's observation that the applicant was near his pre-morbid level of function and the NARSUM's characterization of occupational impairment were also noted. The SRP agreed that the 70 percent rating criteria were not reflected in the evidence, and thus concluded that a rating higher than 50 percent at the time of placement on the...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2014 | 20140009060
In this case, however, the SRP concluded that there was not sufficient evidence to support a conclusion that a highly-stressful event severe enough to bring about the Veterans release from active military service occurred and that the application of VASRD Section 4.129 was not appropriate. The SRP noted that the debate therefore focused on a 50 percent versus 70 percent rating. The PEB quoted the VASRD Section 4.130 criteria in assignment of a 30 percent rating, but the SRP considered if...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2014 | 20140013449
The PDBR SRP conducted a comprehensive review of the applicants submissions and records for evidence of inappropriate changes in the diagnosis of a MH condition during processing through the military disability system. After a comprehensive review of the applicants case, the SRP recommend by unanimous vote that the applicant's prior MH rating determinations be modified to reflect a Temporary Disability Retired List (TDRL) entry at 50 percent for his MH condition, for a combined TDRL entry...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2014 | 20140010917
The PDBR SRP conducted a comprehensive review of the applicants submissions and records for evidence of inappropriate changes in the diagnosis of a MH condition during processing through the military disability system. The SRP also considered if there was evidence for a VASRD Section 4.130 rating higher than 50 percent at time of placement on the TDRL. The SRP concluded that the 70 percent criteria was not reflected in the evidence and therefore agreed that a rating higher than 50 percent...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2014 | 20140007675
The SRP considered the appropriateness of changes in the MH diagnoses; the physical evaluation board (PEB) fitness determination; if unfitting, whether the provisions of VASRD, section 4.129, were applicable; and a disability rating recommendation in accordance with VASRD, section 4.130. The SRP noted that while the PEB had placed the applicant on the TDRL, application of VASRD, section 4.129, required a minimum disability rating of 50 percent with re-evaluation. As a result, the Board...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2015 | 20150014152
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 reviewed the records for evidence of inappropriate changes in diagnosis of the MH condition during processing through the disability evaluation system (DES). The higher 70 percent rating is for Occupational and social impairment, with deficiencies in most areas....
ARMY | BCMR | CY2014 | 20140014465
The applicant requests a review of the military disability evaluation pertaining to a mental health (MH) condition. The PDBR SRP conducted a comprehensive review of the applicants submissions and records for evidence of inappropriate changes in the diagnosis of a MH condition during processing through the military disability system. At a psychiatric clinic evaluation, the month of TDRL placement, the examiner noted that the applicant was employed and motivated for treatment. The...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2014 | 20140010716
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 reviewed the records for evidence of inappropriate changes in diagnosis of the applicant's MH condition during processing through the military Disability Evaluation System. The SRP next reviewed the rating recommendation at the time the applicant was removed from...