IN THE CASE OF: BOARD DATE: 25 October 2021 DOCKET NUMBER: AR20200010161 APPLICANT REQUESTS in effect the following corrections: a. reconsideration of Army Board for Correction of Military Records (ABCMR) Army Docket Number AR20170004477, dated 25 July 2019, by referring his record to the Army disability evaluation system to show his medical condition(s) were unfitting with a physical disability rating 30 percent or greater on or about 1 October 1999, and paying him disability retired pay; b. expunging Headquarters and Headquarters Company, 1st Battalion, 111th Aviation Regiment, Florida Army National Guard (FLARNG) Orders Number 99-21, dated 30 July 1999, from his official military personnel record; and c. a personal appearance hearing before the Board. APPLICANT'S SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS CONSIDERED BY THE BOARD: * DD Form 149 (Application for Correction of Military Record) * service dental records * service treatment records (previously submitted) * U.S. Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims, No., Applicant v., Secretary of Veterans Affairs (VA) dated 14 September 2020 FACTS: 1. On 15 December 2020, the applicant dated and then submitted his latest application. In effect, he states the Board should grant him a disability retirement based on new evidence from his VA appeals court claim. In his VA appeals court claim, the court found the VA failed to consider the theory of continuity of symptomatology for his medical condition, left ankle sprain. The appeals court vacated the VA denial decision and remanded it back to the VA for readjustments consistent with its decision. 2. The Board will consider his request for reconsideration of Army Docket Number AR20170004477 because he submitted new evidence warranting a review by the Board. His new evidence is his U.S. Court of Appeals for Veterans Claim Number 3. From the applicant’s record maintained at the National Personnel Record Center, part of the National Archives, in St. Louis, Missouri and from his three previous applications, the following pertinent facts are known. a. The applicant enlisted in the Army National Guard of the United States (ARNGUS) on 22 June 1995. He enlisted for 8 years, the military statutory service agreement. He concurrently enlisted in the State of Army National Guard (ARNG). He entered the ARNGUS/ARNG in the rank private first class/pay grade E-3. b. He was ordered to active duty for training to attend basic combat training and advanced individual training for military occupational specialty (MOS) 92Y (Unit Supply Specialist). His active duty orders are not available for review; however, for enlisted members of the Reserve component who are ordered to active duty for training their orders are generally self-terminating orders. c. On 18 December 1995 he was released from active duty, not by reason of physical disability, and issued a DD Form 214 (Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty) documenting his active service. He completed his training in MOS 92Y and he served on active duty for 4 months and 9 days. He was separated under Army Regulation 635-200 (Personnel Separations – Enlisted Personnel), Chapter 4 (Separation for Expiration of Service Obligation). His character of service is shown as uncharacterized. 4. Army Regulation 635-5 (Separation Documents), then in effect, established the standardized policy for preparing and distributing the DD Form 214. This regulation stated, in pertinent part, that a DD Form 214 would be issued at the time of separation to all personnel, to include Reserve component personnel after completing 90 days or more of continuous active duty for training, full-time training duty, or active duty support. 5. Army Regulation 635-200 in effect at the time stated the characterization of service for ARNGUS or U.S. Army Reserve Soldiers on active duty for training orders would be determined solely on their military behavior and performance of duty during the period they were called to active duty. Later publications of this same regulation stated Reserve Component Soldiers would receive an honorable character of service upon completion of initial entry training, awarded a MOS and who then report for duty to their unit of assignment post MOS training. 6. Therefore, based on the aforementioned guidance the applicant’s DD Form 214 for the period ending 18 December 1995 should be administratively corrected without board action to show his character of service as honorable. See "Administrative Notes." 7. His record continues to show: a. He reported to his ARNG unit after completion of his active duty for training. He performed inactive duty with his ARNG unit, Headquarters and Headquarters Company, 1st battalion, 111th Aviation,. He accrued retirement points during years June 1996 through June 1997, June 1997 through June 1998, and June 1998 through June 1999. b. Headquarters and Headquarters Company, 1st Battalion, 111th Aviation Regiment, ARNG Orders Number 99-21, dated 30 July 1999, reduced him from private first class/pay grade E-3 to private/pay grade E-2 effective 1 August 1999. The reason for his reduction shown on this order was because he was an unsatisfactory participant meaning during a calendar year he did not attend nine or more-unit training assemblies. (The requirement for Reserve Component Soldiers is to attend 48-unit training assemblies during a fiscal year.) His order is signed by his commanding officer and the authority for reducing him in rank is shown as National Guard Regulation (NGR) (Enlisted Personnel Management), paragraph 9-11. c. The facts and circumstances surrounding his discharge from the ARNGUS/ARNG are not available for review. However, Orders Number P252- 018, issued by the Office of the Adjutant General, ARNG on 9 September 1999 ordered his honorable discharge from the ARNGUS on 1 October 1999. The authority for his administrative separation was paragraph 8-26d of NGR 600-200. His order also transferred him to the U.S. Army Reserve Control (USAR) Group (Annual Training). d. As ordered he was discharged on 1 October 1999 under chapter 8, paragraph 8-26d of NGR 600-200, as an unsatisfactory participant, with an honorable characterization of service. He had completed 4 years, 3 months and 10 days of service. He was transferred to the USAR Control Group to complete his remaining service obligations. e. On 28 December 2003 he applied to the Army Discharge Review Board (ADRB) for a review of his NGB Form 22 (Report of Separation and Record of Service), specifically his reason for separation. On 15 September 2004 during a records review the ADRB determined his NGB Form 22 should not be corrected because he was properly and equitably discharged. During the Board’s deliberation Government regularity was presumed and the ADRB denied him relief. His case report and directive is recorded as Army Docket Number AR2004101151. e. In January 2005, he petitioned the ADRB requesting a personal appearance hearing before the ADRB. After his hearing and examining the evidence of record the ADRB on 5 June 2006 contended his narrative reason for separation should be changed to "Physical Standards." His case was referred to The Adjutant General, State of with a recommendation to issue him a new NGB Form 22 based on his ADRB hearing and subsequent recommendation to change his narrative reason for separation. His case report and directive is shown as Army Docket Number AR20050001351. f. The Adjutant General, State of accepted the recommendation of the ADRB and reissued the applicant a NGB Form 22 showing his authority and narrative reason for separation was changed to NGR 600-200, paragraph 26b (3) physical standards. g. On 4 February 2007, he applied to the ABCMR requesting restoration of his rank based on the recommendation of the ADRB to change his narrative reason for separation to physical standards. He claimed he should not have been reduced by his unit commander. The ABCMR met on 14 August 2007 and after reviewing the evidence of record and applicable regulations they denied him relief. His record of proceedings is recorded as Army Docket Number AR20070002352. h. On 3 March 2017, he submitted a second application to the ABCMR requesting correction to his record to show he was medically discharged due to physical disability and expungement of his grade reduction order. He claimed his injury occurred during his initial entry training and was further aggravated by the abusive working conditions he experienced during his initial entry training in 1995. His application and supporting evidence were reviewed by an Army Medical Corps physician assigned to the Army Review Boards Agency (ARBA). The Army physician stated the applicant met the medical retention standards of Army Regulation 40-501 (Standards of Medical Fitness) for the following medical conditions: elevated blood pressure (with or without diagnosis of hypertension), history of pitting edema (swelling of both legs), history of left ankle sprain(s), history of transiently elevated liver enzymes, pseudo folliculitis barbae and visual acuity. The Army physician did not recommend the applicant’s entry into the disability evaluation system nor a correction to his record. As evidence to support entry into the disability evaluation system he submitted his VA rating decision showing on 25 May 2017 his combined rating was 20 percent. His Army Docket Number for this application is AR2017004457. i. On or about 15 August 2018, he submitted a third application to the ABCMR. Within this application he requested correction to his DD Form 214 to show an honorable characterization of service. He also requested correction to his DD Form 214 to show his education, his Reserve retirement points and awards. His assigned Army Docket Number for this application is AR20180016557. j. On 13 June 2019 the ABCMR met considering his application, supporting evidence and evidence of record for AR20180016557. In its decision regarding his DD Form 214 character of service, the ABCMR said he failed to exhaust administrative remedies available to him prior to applying to the Board concerning his character of service. The ABCMR recommended he apply to the U.S. Army Human Resources Command first, and if his response was not favorable, then he could apply to the ABCMR. Concerning his request to correct his DD Form 214 to show his education, Reserve retirement points and additional awards, the ABCMR denied him relief stating his DD Form 214 was for his period of active duty training only. Any education, Reserve retirement points or State of Florida awards by regulation could not be entered on his December 1995 DD Form 214. k. On 25 July 2019 the ABCMR met and considered his second application, Army Docket Number AR20170004457 initially submitted on 3 March 2017. The Board denied him relief stating, in effect, that the medical advisory submitted by the Army physician found no evidence warranting evaluation by the disability evaluation system. (The Army Surgeon General and the U.S. Army Physical Disability Agency are responsible for determining medical fitness or unfitness of Soldiers. The Chief National Guard Bureau is responsible for determining medical fitness or unfitness of ARNGUS personnel.) The Board did not specifically discuss his request to expunge ARNG Orders Number 99-21, dated 30 July 1999, from his record. 8. He provides the following new evidence in support of his application. a. His United States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims v. the Secretary of Veterans Affairs shows that he and his counselor appealed a VA benefit entitlement decision denying him VA benefits for his left ankle disorder. In November 1995, while attending initial entry training he sprained his left ankle. He initially sought benefits for this condition in July 2006, and his claim was denied by the VA. He did not appeal that decision. In June 2009, he requested that his claim be reopened by VA. He submitted new evidence showing he was a police officer and was required to stand for long periods of time. He also submitted evidence from his physician who opined his initial in-service ankle injury from 1995 was related to his permanent and ongoing swelling in his legs and ankles. After numerous decisions and appeals by the applicant, the VA denied him benefits for a left ankle disorder. The VA determined his left ankle condition was not service connected nor aggravated by his active service. On appeal with counsel, they argued he was entitled to VA benefits under the theory of continuity of symptomatology. The VA Court of Appeals accepted this argument and ordered the VA record of proceedings before it vacated and it was remanded back to the VA for adjudication consistent with its decision on 28 February 2018. b. On or about 15 December 2020 he printed his VA eBenefits summary showing his combined VA service-connected disabling rating is 70 percent. The following medical conditions were determined by the VA to be service-connected with assigned percentages noted: * Hypertension rated 10 percent on 28 March 2007 * Pitting edema of the left lower extremity rated 0 percent on 26 June 2009 * Pitting edema of the right lower extremity rated 0 percent on 26 June 2009 * Erectile dysfunction rated 0 percent on 31 October 2015 * Hypertensive retinopathy rated 0 percent on 29 January 2016 * Major depressive disorder, recurrent, mild claimed as adjustment disorder rated 50 percent on 24 September 2018 * Migraine headaches rated 0 percent on 28 May 2019 * Pseudo folliculitis barbae rated 30 percent on 28 May 2019 c. The VA determined his left ankle condition, cervical spine condition, peripheral neuropathy of his right and left lower extremities, right foot injury, obstructive sleep apnea, heart condition, and his diabetes mellitus II were not service connected. Therefore. these medical conditions were not ratable. As the VA determined they were not ratable, he did not receive VA entitlements for the aforementioned medical conditions. d. He resubmits his dental and medical service treatment records. This is not considered new evidence under Army Regulation 15-185 (ABMCR) and does not necessarily warrant further review by the ABCMR. 9. As the applicant is requesting entry into the disability evaluation system, the Army Review Boards Agency medical officers conducted a medical review of the applicant’s service treatment records and VA records through the Joint Legacy Viewer. The medical doctors upon the conclusion of their review will provide a recommendation to the Board members. See "MEDICAL REVIEW." 10. The Army rates only conditions determined to be physically unfitting at the time of discharge, which disqualify the Soldier from further military service. In this case he was released from active duty in 1995 and in 1999 he was separated from the FLARNG. The Army disability rating is to compensate the individual for the loss of a military career. The VA does not have authority or responsibility for determining physical fitness for military service. The VA may compensate the individual for loss of civilian employability. 11. Army Regulation 635-40 (Physical Evaluation for Retention, Retirement, or Separation) prescribes the Army Disability Evaluation System (DES) and sets forth policies, responsibilities, and procedures that apply in determining whether a Soldier is unfit because of physical disability to reasonably perform the duties of his office, grade, rank, or rating. Effective 19 January 2017, the DES legacy process will be used for Army Veterans referred to the DES by the ABCMR. The Secretary of the Army or designee approves requests for legacy processing on a case-by-case basis. Medical conditions evaluated during the DES will solely consist of those conditions for which a permanent three or four profiles were approved during the applicant’s period of service and any other conditions which the physician conducting the medical examination finds individually or in combination are not likely to meet medical retention standards. Cases referred by the ABCMR address conditions in the context of their status at the time of the Veteran’s separation. As stated, for this applicant his date of release from active duty training was on 18 December 1995. He served 4 years in the FLARNG and was separated on 1 October 1999. 12. Title 10, U.S. Code, section 1201, provides for the physical disability retirement of a member (serving on active duty or in the ready Reserve) who has at least 20 years of service or a disability rating of at least 30 percent. Title 10, U.S. Code, section 1203, provides for the physical disability separation of a member who has less than 20 years of service and a disability rating at less than 30 percent. 13. Title 38, U.S. Code, sections 1110 and 1131, permit the VA to award compensation for disabilities which were incurred in or aggravated by active military service. However, an award of a VA rating does not establish an error or injustice on the part of the Army. 14. Title 38, Code of Federal Regulations, Part IV is the VA’s schedule for rating disabilities. The VA awards disability ratings to veterans for service-connected conditions, including those conditions detected after discharge. As a result, the VA, operating under different policies, may award a disability rating where the Army did not find the member to be unfit to perform his duties. Unlike the Army, the VA can evaluate a veteran throughout his or her lifetime, adjusting the percentage of disability based upon that agency's examinations and findings. 15. MEDICAL REVIEW: The Army Review Board Agency (ARBA) Medical Advisor reviewed the supporting documents and the applicant’s military service records. The Armed Forces Health Longitudinal Technology Application (AHLTA) & Health Artifacts Image Solutions (HAIMS) was not in use at the time of his service. The only entries in AHLTA are for a pre-employment physical for on post security guard from 24 Oct 2014. His hardcopy military medical record was not available for review. A review of his hardcopy military medical record indicates he met retention standards on 1 Feb 1997. There are no psychiatric symptoms or diagnoses. A review of JLV indicates the applicant was referred by his primary care provider for evaluation on 17 May 2011. He reported being depressed and frustrated that he is not progressing in his career. He was not satisfied with current job at the sheriff’s office. He applied for federal law enforcement and was accepted but did not get the job due to a background check. He reported that he gets frustrated and anxious and his wife told him he magnifies whatever goes wrong with his life. He denied any previous psychiatric history. He was diagnosed with Major Depression and Generalized Anxiety Disorder and prescribed Zoloft. On 12 Jul 2011, he reported a positive response to the medication. On 10 Apr 2014, he reported improvement in financial situation due to settlement from prior car accident with enough income to support him and his wife for 5 years. He was applying for employment with VA police in NY. Treatment plan indicated plan to terminate therapy due to improvement in symptoms. He has a service connected disability rating of 90% with 50% for Major Depressive Disorder (MDD) effective 24 Sept 2018. In accordance with the 3 Sep 2014 Secretary of Defense Liberal Guidance Memorandum and the 25 Aug 2017, Clarifying Guidance there is documentation to support a behavioral health diagnosis at the time of his discharge. He met retention standards at the time of his discharge. It is acknowledged that the applicant has a service-connected disability of 50% for MDD. This determination alone, however, does not automatically mean that military medical disability/retirement is warranted. It is important to understand that the VA operates under different rules, laws, and regulations when assigning disability percentages than the Department of Defense (DoD). In essence, the VA will compensate for all disabilities felt to be unsuiting. The DoD does not compensate for unsuiting conditions but rather for conditions that are determined to be unfitting. Medical retirement/disability is not warranted. BOARD DISCUSSION: 1. The applicant's request for a personal appearance was carefully considered. In this case, the evidence of record was sufficient to render a fair and equitable decision. As a result, a personal appearance before the Board is not necessary to serve the interest of equity and justice in this case. 2. After reviewing the application, all supporting documents, and the evidence found within the military record, the Board determined that relief was not warranted. The applicant’s contentions, the military record and regulatory guidance were carefully considered. The Board concurred with the medical review finding neither a military medical disability nor retirement warranted. Based on the preponderance of the evidence, the Board determined the evidence presented insufficient to warrant a recommendation of relief. 3. The Board further determined based on the preponderance of the evidence presented, insufficient evidence of an error or injustice to warrant removal of the Headquarters and Headquarters Company, 1st Battalion, 111th Aviation Regiment, Florida Army National Guard (FLARNG) Orders Number 99-21, dated 30 July 1999,from the applicant’s official military personnel record. 4. Prior to closing the case, the Board noted that the applicant’s DD214 for the period ending 18 December 1995 will be administratively corrected to show in Block 24 (Character of Service) his service as "Honorable." BOARD VOTE: Mbr 1 Mbr 2 Mbr 3 : : : 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. 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. ADMINISTRATIVE NOTE(S): Correct the applicant’s DD Form 214 for the period ending 18 December 1995 to show in Block 24 (Character of Service) his service was "Honorable." Request issuance of a corrected document, send the applicant a corrected document and place a copy of the corrected document in his personnel record. REFERENCES: 1. Army Regulation 600-37 (Unfavorable Information) sets forth policies and procedures to ensure the best interests of both the Army and Soldiers are served by authorizing unfavorable information to be placed in, transferred within, or removed from an individual's AMHRR. Paragraph 7-2 (Policies and Standards), states once an official document has been properly filed in the OMPF, it is presumed to be administratively correct and to have been filed pursuant to an objective decision by competent authority. Thereafter, the burden of proof rests with the individual concerned to provide evidence of a clear and convincing nature the document is untrue or unjust, in whole or in part, thereby warranting its alteration or removal from the OMPF. Appeals that merely allege an injustice or error without supporting evidence are not acceptable and will not be considered. 2. Army Regulation 600-8-104 (Military Personnel Information Management/ Records) prescribes the policies governing the Official Military Personnel File (OMPF), the Military Personnel Records Jacket (MPRJ), the Career Management Individual File, and Army Personnel Qualification Records. Paragraph 2-4 of this regulation states that once a document is placed in the OMPF it becomes a permanent part of that file and will not be removed from that file or moved to another part of the file unless directed by the proper authorities listed in the regulation. Table 2-1 of this regulation pertains to the composition of the OMPF, which states that data, forms or official documents that pertain to the permanent or temporary promotion status will be filed in the general administration section of the Soldiers performance folder. 3. Army Regulation 600-8-104 (Army Human Resource Records Management (AMHRR)) prescribes Army policy for the creation, utilization, administration, maintenance, and disposition of the AMHRR. The version of the regulation in effect on 24 October 2016 stats the AMHRR includes, but is not limited to the OMPF, finance related documents and non-service documents. The AMHRR is the historical and authoritative sources for authentication of veteran or service related benefits. Only documents pertaining to a Soldier?s military career will be filed in the OMPF. Case files for approved separations will be filed in the service and finance folder of the OMPF. ADRB and ABCMR record of proceedings with application and decision memoranda will be filed in the Soldier?s or veteran?s restricted folder within the OMPF. 4. Army Regulation 635-40 (Physical Evaluation for Retention, Retirement, or Separation), currently in effect, prescribes the Army Disability Evaluation System and sets forth policies, responsibilities, and procedures that apply in determining whether a Soldier is unfit because of physical disability to reasonably perform the duties of his office, grade, rank, or rating. It implements the requirements of Title 10, U.S. Code, chapter 61. a. The Surgeon General of the Army will establish and interpret medical standards for retaining Soldiers on active duty. b. The Director, ARNG on behalf of the Chief, National Guard Bureau will ensure eligible Soldiers of the ARNGUS are referred for evaluation into the DES in accordance with this regulation. c. The objectives are to maintain an effective and fit military organization with maximum use of available manpower; provide benefits to eligible Soldiers whose military service is terminated because of a service-connected disability; provide prompt disability evaluation processing ensuring the rights and interests of the Government and Soldier are protected; and, establish the Military Occupational Specialty Administrative Retention Review (MAR2) as an Army pre-DES evaluation process for Soldiers who require a P3 or P4 (permanent profile) for a medical condition that does meet the medical retention standards of Army Regulation 40-501. d. Public Law 110-181 defines the term, physical DES, as a system or process of the DoD for evaluating the nature and extent of disabilities affecting members of the Armed Forces that is operated by the Secretaries of the military departments and is composed of medical evaluation boards, physical evaluation boards, counseling of Soldiers, and mechanisms for the final disposition of disability evaluations by appropriate personnel. e. The DES begins for a Soldier when either of the events below occurs: (1) The Soldier is issued a permanent profile approved in accordance with the provisions of Army Regulation 40–501 and the profile contains a numerical designator of P3/P4 in any of the serial profile factors for a condition that appears not to meet medical retention standards in accordance with AR 40–501. Within (but not later than) 1 year of diagnosis, the Soldier must be assigned a P3/P4 profile to refer the Soldier to the DES. (2) The Soldier is referred to the DES as the outcome of MAR2 evaluation. f. A medical evaluation board is convened to determine whether a Soldier’s medical condition(s) meets medical retention standards per Army Regulation 40- 501. This board may determine a Soldier’s condition(s) meet medical retention standards and recommend the Soldier be returned to duty. This board must not provide conclusions or recommendations regarding fitness determinations. g. The physical evaluation board (PEB) determines fitness for purposes of Soldiers’ retention, separation or retirement for disability under Title 10, U.S. Code, chapter 61, or separation for disability without entitlement to disability benefits under other than Title 10, U.S. Code, chapter 61. The physical evaluation board also makes certain administrative determinations that may benefit implications under other provisions of law. The PEB is not a statutory board. It is a fact finding board evaluating the physical condition of the Soldier against the physical requirement of the Soldier’s office, grade, rank or raring. h. The PEB may permanently retire a Regular Army Soldier if he has at least 20 years of service as defined in section 1208, Title 10, U.S. Code. i. Unless reserved for higher authority, the U.S. Army Physical Disability Agency approves disability cases for the Secretary of the Army and issues disposition instructions for Soldiers separated or retired for physical disability. 5. Army Regulation 40-501 (Standards of Medical Fitness) provides information on medical fitness standards for induction, enlistment, appointment, retention, retirement and related policies and procedures. Chapter 3 describes the various medical conditions and physical defects which may render a Soldier unfit for further military services. These medical conditions and physical defects, individually or in combination, are those that significantly limit or interfere with the Soldier’s performance of duty; may compromise or aggravate the Soldier’s health or well-being, if they were to remain in the military Service such as frequent clinical monitoring; may compromise the health or well-being of other Soldiers; and may prejudice the best interest of the Government if the individual were to remain in the military Service. Soldiers who do not meet the required medical standards will be evaluated by a medical evaluation board. a. The general policy states that possession of one or more of the conditions listed in this chapter does not mean automatic retirement or separation from the Service. Physicians are responsible for referring Soldiers with conditions in this chapter to a medical evaluation board. b. Paragraph 3-13 (Lower Extremities) provides in subparagraph 3-13d described joint ranges of motion stating motion which does not equal or exceed the measurements as described in the paragraph. Measurements must be made with a goniometer and conform to the methods illustrative and described in Technical Manual 8-640. For the ankle the dorsiflexion to 10 degrees and the plantar flexion to 10 degrees. 6. Title 38, U.S. Code, section 1110 (General - Basic Entitlement) states for disability resulting from personal injury suffered or disease contracted in line of duty, or for aggravation of a preexisting injury suffered or disease contracted in line of duty, in the active military, naval, or air service, during a period of war, the United States will pay to any veteran thus disabled and who was discharged or released under conditions other than dishonorable from the period of service in which said injury or disease was incurred, or preexisting injury or disease was aggravated, compensation as provided in this subchapter, but no compensation shall be paid if the disability is a result of the veteran's own willful misconduct or abuse of alcohol or drugs. 7. Title 38, U.S. Code, section 1131 (Peacetime Disability Compensation - Basic Entitlement) states for disability resulting from personal injury suffered or disease contracted in line of duty, or for aggravation of a preexisting injury suffered or disease contracted in line of duty, in the active military, naval, or air service, during other than a period of war, the United States will pay to any veteran thus disabled and who was discharged or released under conditions other than dishonorable from the period of service in which said injury or disease was incurred, or preexisting injury or disease was aggravated, compensation as provided in this subchapter, but no compensation shall be paid if the disability is a result of the veteran's own willful misconduct or abuse of alcohol or drugs. 8. Army Regulation 15-185 (ABCMR) prescribes the policies and procedures for correction of military records by the Secretary of the Army, acting through the ABCMR. It operates pursuant to Title 10, U.S. Code, section 1552. The ABCMR considers individual applications that are properly brought before it. In appropriate cases, it directs or recommends correction of military record(s) to remove an error or an injustice. The ABCMR will decide cases on the evidence of record. It is not an investigative body. It begins its consideration of each case with the presumption of administrative regularity meaning what Army personnel did at the time of the Soldier’s or Veteran’s area of service was administratively correct. The applicant has the burden of proving an error or injustice by a preponderance of the evidence. Concerning a request for a personal appearance before the Board, applicant’s do not have a right to a hearing before the Board. The Director of the ABCMR may grant a formal hearing whenever justice requires. //NOTHING FOLLOWS// ABCMR Record of Proceedings (cont) AR20200010161 1 ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 1