Personality Disorder,

[Guest Jim S.]

More than a few of us have been classified with personality disorder by the military or the VA Examiner. I have been wondering how they determine one with one and how do they guage it's severity, so that they could differentiate it from a mental disorder.

I found it hard to believe that I had a personality disorder, since it was never noted prior to enlistment, nor during my psychological tests at enlistment, nor the absence of anything saying I had it during service, nor was it noted on my re-enlistment physical, and nor was it noted during my three month hospitalization after my psychotic episode.

It's strange to note that my so called personality disorder was only noted by the VA Examiner and has not been noted anyware in my medical records since and not in any of the last two plus years, in which I have been under treatment for associated disorders to my psychotic episode, for which the VA continues to deny as nothing new or material to my personality disorder, Still further to fail to address the psychotic episode as a mental disorder.

I have had my ups and downs while in the service, but I was never repermanded or had Capt. Mast for anything. My regular evaluations are average to above average, I went from Seaman Apprentice to Hospitalman Third Class in the first half of my first enlistment and was selected one of two endividuals to attend a specialty school in my unit, I was also recommended for an additional specialty school and advancement upon completion to Hospitalman Second Class. Somehow I don't see this as a servicman with a personality disorder that was unfit for duty or the reason for my psychotic episode.

I know I'm rambling along, but I have run out of things to do for my claim, while the VA does their thing, but to wonder how the VA could consider such an opinion, taking into the consideration besides the ups and down in my limited career, that my superiors thought well enough of me to recommend my request for re-enlistment and pass the re-enlistment physical too and to recommed advancement to the next high rate upon completion of this advace school.

I just wish their is a way to tell where your claim is in the stack of all the other claims. Something that tells you are number two or three in a stack of a dozen, something besides we have your claim and nothing new to report.

AAAHHHHHH!!!!!

Jim S.

Edited October 4, 2005 by Jim S.

[john999]

Some personality disorders are really traits and characteristics of major mental disorders that have not manifested themselves. Like schizoid personality disorder which is sort of pre-schizophrenia. The medical profession likes to jump on the personality disorder of the day such as borderline personality disorder. One of the main things about personality disorders is that the person with the disorder does not experience anixiety about it. You can really tell when a doctor is fishing for a personality disorder diagnosis. Of course, most of us were banged up with that label before we knew to be on our guards, and while we believed that most doctors had ethics beyond serving their masters.

[Guest Jim S.]

Guys, Gals: Wings I hope you don't mind being called a gal?

It would seem that the VARO in their mixed since of how the regulation reads, they use the statement that the VA examiner after reviewing my records, that in his opinion at the present time, that I presented myself as one with a personality disorder, inadequate type, associated with inadequate educational experience.

They used half of the regulation of (4.124 a) to apparrently support their findings, but they never addressed part (b.). since they apparently were comparing apples and oranges and instead of coming up with apple pie with orange juice or fruit salad, they threw out the apples and used the oranges instead. They were supposed to tell why they didn't present them seperately as apple pie and orange juice or as fruit salad or that the apples were bad and could not be used leaving only orange juice. LoL

Jim S.

Hoppy, The VA's medical language is often archaic! Co-occuring is the modern terminology and conforms to the DSM IV.

See where the VA must use the Manual:

§4.125 Diagnosis of mental disorders. (a) If the diagnosis of a mental disorder does not conform to DSM-IV or is not supported by the findings on the examination report, the rating agency shall return the report to the examiner to substantiate the diagnosis. ( If the diagnosis of a mental disorder is changed, the rating agency shall determine whether the new diagnosis represents progression of the prior diagnosis, correction of an error in the prior diagnosis, or development of a new and separate condition. If it is not clear from the available records what the change of diagnosis represents, the rating agency shall return the report to the examiner for a determination. (Authority: 38 U.S.C. 1155)

I'm not sure when this particular code was added, but there were substantial ammendments in 1996.

Posted here http://www.haditveteransforum.com/127152.htm

[Federal Register: October 8, 1996 (Volume 61, Number 196)]

[Rules and Regulations]

[Page 52695-52702]

From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]

[DOCID:fr08oc96-10]

DEPARTMENT OF VETERANS AFFAIRS

38 CFR Part 4

RIN 2900-AF01

Schedule for Rating Disabilities; Mental Disorders

AGENCY: Department of Veterans Affairs.

ACTION: Final rule.

Edited October 6, 2005 by Jim S.

[Wings]

Jim, Gal is fine. I think the reference to fruit salad was a great way to express the VARO's "reasons and bases" - a little of this, a little of that . . . Come to think of it, the taste is more akin to fruit cake

The VA has gots to learn to use the DSM when decideing mental disorders!!

[Hoppy]

Hoppy, The VA's medical language is often archaic! Co-occuring is the modern terminology and conforms to the DSM IV.

See where the VA must use the Manual:

§4.125 Diagnosis of mental disorders. (a) If the diagnosis of a mental disorder does not conform to DSM-IV or is not supported by the findings on the examination report, the rating agency shall return the report to the examiner to substantiate the diagnosis. ( If the diagnosis of a mental disorder is changed, the rating agency shall determine whether the new diagnosis represents progression of the prior diagnosis, correction of an error in the prior diagnosis, or development of a new and separate condition. If it is not clear from the available records what the change of diagnosis represents, the rating agency shall return the report to the examiner for a determination. (Authority: 38 U.S.C. 1155)

I'm not sure when this particular code was added, but there were substantial ammendments in 1996.

Posted here http://www.haditveteransforum.com/127152.htm

[Federal Register: October 8, 1996 (Volume 61, Number 196)]

[Rules and Regulations]

[Page 52695-52702]

From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]

[DOCID:fr08oc96-10]

DEPARTMENT OF VETERANS AFFAIRS

38 CFR Part 4

RIN 2900-AF01

Schedule for Rating Disabilities; Mental Disorders

AGENCY: Department of Veterans Affairs.

ACTION: Final rule.

Wings,

Citing the exact code on the use of the DSM IV is appreciated. I have referred to this requirement often. I no longer have an organized file for all these codes. I used to have it on a previous computer. As time goes on it appears as though the clarity of the codes codes get more favorable for the veteran in that you can understand what your up against. It is just a question if the adjudicators resist change. Terry mentioned that the BVA remanded his case to the RO to schedule a C&P exam and the RO ignored the BVA.

Guys, Gals: Wings I hope you don't mind being called a gal?

It would seem that the VARO in their mixed since of how the regulation reads, they use the statement that the VA examiner after reviewing my records, that in his opinion at the present time, that I presented myself as one with a personality disorder, inadequate type, associated with inadequate educational experience.

They used half of the regulation of (4.124 a) to apparrently support their findings, but they never addressed part (b.). since they apparently were comparing apples and oranges and instead of coming up with apple pie with orange juice or fruit salad, they threw out the apples and used the oranges instead. They were supposed to tell why they didn't present them seperately as apple pie and orange juice or as fruit salad or that the apples were bad and could not be used leaving only orange juice. LoL

Jim S.

Wings,

Oh yea, the condition I have called angioedema is still listed in the VA rating schedule as angioneurotic edema. Angioneurotic edema as a diagnosis was dropped from the DSM IV. Also when I go to the VA medical center they still use angioneurotic edema with an ICD 9 code #. My primary doctor told me he has never heard of angioneutotic edema. He probaply graduated med school recently. He knows what angioedema is.

[Hoppy]

Hoppy, Wings: I hear what you are saying about and IMO and a Nexus to a current diagnosis, but it is not as easy as it sound in this neck of the woods. Those mental health professionals that have the expertise are either not interested in spending time going thru the hundreds of pages of medical history, service records and other sources of records pertenent to my claim or they are just too expensive for my limited budget can afford.

You got to understand that my reasoning ability wasn't firing on all cylenders back then and I had no idea I could appeal past the VARO level. I didn't know other than that they denied my claim and my appeal. Appealing to the BVA and COVA were not something I knew anything about until about two or three years ago. I truely was amazed how much I learned in such a short time after learning about this forum site.

I'm hoping for a C&P exam request, for if it is cunducted according to the work sheet for Mental disorders, I would hope it would show a nexus of my current problems with that which happened to me while in service.

Waiting has caused my Anxiety disorder to kick up a few notches and my sleep problems have also been agravated. As you might not, the time of this post is around 03:45 a.m.

good night/good morning

Jim S.

Jim,

When I first found hadit (maybe 7 years ago) and figured out what bogus denials I had rec'd I developed a huge sleep disorder. I was on pins and needles for two years. My friends got tired of hearing me bad mouth the VA. I was denied without the benefit of a C&P exam. Hang in there. Learning and discussing things on hadit had a way of getting me frustrated and relieved at the same time. LL ( don't know if he is still around) and Alex had different ideas about my chances of success. The interaction between their posts was most educational. The reason I hang around here and make posts is because hadit was a great cite for me and I hope it is for more veterans over time.

[Guest Jim S.]

All my claims and appeals were acted upon rather quickly considering what I have heard about others claims. My last claim was determined within about three months even though I withdrew the claim for consideration. That was the De Novo Review Claim that they treated like a new claim with new and material evidence.

The De Novo Review Claim was asking the VARO to review my previous claims for possible errors in the adjudication process. Right off hand I can't tell what rule it is, but the VARO has the authority to review a previously decided claim for errors of evidence or errors in how that evidence was ruled on. But apparently the VARO doesn't know what it can or can not do.