IN THE CASE OF:	  

		BOARD DATE:	  1 October 2014

		DOCKET NUMBER:  AR20140014551 


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 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 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 responded to the advisory opinion.  In his rebuttal, the applicant stated he reviewed the facts in the advisory opinion and was filled with disbelief and anger.  He originally returned from deployment in 2006 and had no intentions of remaining in the Army even though this was something he had wanted to do since he was a child.  He was supported by his spouse, even though they had a child who was 2 years old when he joined the Army.

5.  The applicant stated his unit returned from deployment and was informed about the post-deployment assessment.  There were plenty of discussions amongst Soldiers who were on their second and third deployment who were informed how to respond to questions on the assessment if they wanted to continue to have a military career.  He answered no to everything even though the correct and truthful answers were yes to almost everything on the assessment.  He returned from deployment withdrawn and detached from his family.  He began to drink every night when he returned from work and was informed by his spouse that it needed to stop.  He further stated that it was hard to describe the things he felt inside or how to even explain some of his actions.  He felt invincible, like nothing could or would touch him.  His actions almost destroyed his family and he would not ask for help.  He goes on to describe several actions that took place.

6. The applicant stated he relocated to Fort Leonard Wood in 2007 and his family problems continued, which stemmed from his inability to seek help for his mental condition.  He described the events that continued to occur and the actions that continued to destroy his family.  He also described an incident that occurred while on a Christmas family trip to New York which made him flashback to the time he was deployed. 

7.  He stated over the years problems developed in his marriage.  He requested to seek assistance from a psychiatrist; it took 2 months to get an appointment.  At his first appointment, the psychiatrist asked a lot of questions.  He was prescribed anti-depressant medication and sleeping pills and remained anti-social.  He described the issues he had communicating with his family.

8.  The applicant states that he was suffering but did not seek assistance and thought he could handled his issues himself.  He felt his commanding officer could have recognized the issues and referred him for assistance.  The applicant was trying to get help; however, there were never enough MH providers available to cover the base.  
He was seen by different providers each time and was never getting in depth on any issues because he had to retell his experiences during each visit.

9.  In summary, he appreciates the SRP time and experience in reviewing his case.

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 separation determination. 

2.  The SRP reviewed the records for evidence of changes in a diagnosis of the MH condition during processing through the military Disability Evaluation System (DES).  The evidence of the available records showed diagnoses of anxiety disorder not otherwise specified (NOS) and Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD) were rendered during processing through the DES.  The SRP noted the diagnosis of PTSD, documented on the DD Form 2807 by a non-MH provider, was not recorded on any other DES record. 

3.  The SRP acknowledged the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Compensation and Pension (C&P) examiner’s PTSD diagnosis, 10 months after separation; however, it concluded that the preponderance of evidence did not support a PTSD diagnosis.  The SRP reviewed the available records in their entirety.  The applicant, by his own admission in the 2006 Post-Deployment Health Assessment (PDHA), denied witnessing wounded, killed or dead persons during his Afghanistan deployment.  He noted he was not in direct combat and he did not discharge his weapon.  He also did not endorse PTSD or depression related symptoms.  He noted that his health had not changed during the deployment and his pre-deployment screen did not indicate a concern for his MH.  He underwent the medical evaluation board (MEB) and was found not to meet the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual for Mental Disorders, Fourth Edition (DSM IV) diagnostic criteria for PTSD.  He requested an independent mental examination and that examiner noted the applicant did not have PTSD.  His treating MH provider did not diagnose PTSD.  There was no documented clinical evidence of the applicant’s reported 9/11 experience.  The SRP concluded there was insufficient evidence that the applicant met the full diagnostic criteria for PTSD, and the diagnosis of anxiety disorder NOS was the appropriate diagnosis at the time of separation.  The SRP determined an MH diagnosis was changed during that process and, therefore, the applicant did appear to meet the inclusion criteria in the Terms of Reference of the MH Review Project.

4.  The SRP considered whether any mental condition, regardless of specific diagnosis, was unfitting for continued military service.  The SRP agreed the preponderance of evidence at the time of separation supported the anxiety disorder NOS diagnosis.  Clinical documentation described essentially normal mental status examinations and symptoms responsive to treatment.  There were no emergency room visits for MH symptoms, no psychiatric hospitalizations, no evidence of suicidal thoughts or behaviors, no panic attacks, no issues of domestic violence, no issues of impulse control, and no legal issues.  The record documented sleep problems in many cases without reference to any specific cause; however, he did have sleep apnea.  The commander’s statement did not implicate an MH issue as interfering in good duty performance and the MH condition was never profiled. 

5.  After due deliberation in consideration of the preponderance of the evidence, the SRP concluded that there was insufficient evidence that any MH condition rose to the level of being unfitting at the time of separation and none were subject to disability rating.

6.  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)                                  AR20140014551



2


ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


1