IN THE CASE OF: BOARD DATE: 25 May 2022 DOCKET NUMBER: AR20210016984 APPLICANT AND HIS COUNSEL REQUEST: reconsideration of the applicant’s prior request for a medical retirement due to physical disability. APPLICANT'S SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS CONSIDERED BY THE BOARD: * DD Form 149 (Application for Correction of Military Record) * Counsel’s Brief * DD Form 214 (Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty) * Army Regulation (AR) 635-40 (Disability Evaluation for Retention, Retirement, or Separation) Summary of Changes, 19 January 2017 * Two DA Forms 3349 (Physical Profiles) * Cedar Springs Medical Records * DA Form 199 (Informal Physical Evaluation Board (PEB) Proceedings) * Severance Pay Documentation * Disability Evaluation System (DES) Proposed Rating, 21 October 2015 * DA Form 7652 (Commander’s Performance and Functional Statement) FACTS: 1. Incorporated herein by reference are military records which were summarized in the previous consideration of the applicant's cases by the Army Board for Correction of Military Records (ABCMR) in Docket Number AR20160006243 on 20 March 2018 and Docket Number AR20180013324 on 7 April 2020. 2. The applicant and his counsel request reconsideration of the prior request to correct the applicant’s records to show he was medically unfit due to persistent depressive disorder with anxious distress, and that he be medically retired with a disability rating in excess of 30%. Counsel further contends, in part, in his petition available for review by the Board: a. The revised AR 635-40, implemented on 19 January 2017, requires a finding of unfit when the Soldier’s medical condition causes the Soldier to be unavailable for worldwide deployment. Counsel believes the applicant’s request for medical retirement should be granted on the basis of an injustice as the current discharge policies and procedures are materially different than those that led to the applicant’s discharge. Based on the revised policy, there is substantial doubt that the applicant’s persistent depressive disorder with anxious distress would have received a determination of “fit for duty” given that the applicant had received two profiles with a rating of “3” in psychiatric for his conditions. The applicant was found to be nondeployable and the revised AR 635-40, paragraph 5-4e, requires a PEB to find Soldiers who are medically disqualified for worldwide deployment in a field or austere environment to be unfit. b. By way of additional argument, counsel states that an injustice occurred both in the 2018 and 2021 Board decisions when the Board failed to consider a major 2017 revision to the adjudicative policy for PEBs and the U.S. Army Physical Disability Agency (USAPDA) determinations that are materially different than those that led to the applicant’s medical separation. Additionally, it appeared the prior medical advisors and physicians that provided the Narrative Summary (NARSUM) both misread the commander’s DA Form 7652, dated 9 July 2015. The basis upon which all the medical providers found the applicant's mental health condition to be fit for duty hinged on whether the commander indicated issues or limitations with the applicant's behavioral health history pursuant to AR 40-501. These providers found that the commander indicated no issues or limitations. However, the DA Form 7652, under Section Ill B, states otherwise. 3. The applicant provides, as tabbed by counsel: a. The below listed documents to be referenced in the service record: * DD Form 214 effective 9 November 2015 * DA Form 199 dated 22 October 2015 * Two DA Forms 3349 b. The Summary of Change page from AR 635-40, dated 19 January 2017, which counsel point out the bullet which states, “Revises policy for physical evaluation board fitness determinations to require a finding of unfit when the Soldier's medical condition causes the Soldier to be unavailable for worldwide deployment (para 5-4e).” c. The applicant’s Cedar Springs hospital records (20 pages) for inpatient treatment received from 14 May 2015 through 26 June 2015. d. Counsel refers to “severance pay documentation” as an attachment, which includes the following: * two Leave and Earnings Statements (LES) for mid-month and end of month November 2015 * Finance Request Memo to request disability severance pay in the amount of $13,428.00 and cash in 45 days of leave * Enlisted Record Brief (ERB) * DA Form 5892 (PEBLO Estimated Disability Compensation Worksheet) - $13,428.00 * Orders 302-0039 dated 29 October 2015 * DD Form 214 effective 9 November 2015 e. A DES Proposed Rating, dated 21 October 2015, indicated a rating was being provided as a result of his referral to the PEB and the following proposed decision was made: * obstructive sleep apnea – 50% * persistent depressive disorder with anxious distress – 50% * cervical strain with cervical spine straightening – 20% * degenerative arthritis of the thoracolumbar spine with myofascial pain – 20% * left knee patellofemoral pain syndrome – 10% * allergic conjunctivitis, both eyes – 10% * tinnitus – 10% * allergic rhinitis – 0% * traumatic brain injury (TBI) – 0% * migraine and tension headaches – 0% * nine additional conditions considered and no rating proposed f. A DA Form 7652, dated 9 July 2015, wherein counsel references the commander’s selections in Section III B (For each Soldier with a Mental Disorder). The commander noted: * physical capabilities limit him to not sitting longer than 2 hours; hinders Soldier from being able to conduct staff duty/CQ or administrative work * unable to perform duties/tasks in an austere living environment or in garrison * physical limitations affect Soldier performing duties/tasks in a timely manner * does not complete duties/tasks * unable to complete an 8-hour day * occasional decrease in work efficiency * difficulty establishing and/or maintaining effective work relations with supervisors and co-workers 4. A review of the applicant’s service record shows: a. He enlisted in the Regular Army on 9 October 2012. b. His records contain a DD Form 2807-1 (Report of Medical History), dated 5 April 2012, completed by the applicant for the purpose of enlistment. The applicant marked “No” to most questions regarding challenges with his health with the exception of marking “yes” to surgery to correct vision (LASIK) and generally in good health. Additionally, the applicant marked “No” to having been a patient in any type of hospital, although she referenced a hospitalization in her personal affidavit. c. A DD Form 2807-2 (Accessions Medical Prescreen Report) was completed by the applicant, prior to his enlistment, on 26 March 2012. The applicant denied having medical challenges or complications by marking “No” to having had a prior history with all medical conditions listed with the exception of any other eye condition. The applicant signed the form validating its information about her physical and mental health. d. A DD Form 2808 (Report of Medical Examination), dated 5 April 2012, shows the applicant underwent an examination for the purpose of enlistment. The applicant’s clinical evaluation was marked abnormal for anus and rectum. Block 74a (Examinee/Applicant) was marked “not qualified for service.” On 11 April 2012, the applicant was granted a waiver for entry. e. On 6 April 2012, the applicant was granted a waiver for entry. f. The Enlisted Record Brief shows the applicant served in Kuwait from 11 July 2013 through 28 October 2013. g. A Medical Evaluation Board (MEB) NARSUM, dated 28 September 2015, indicated the applicant’s entire medical record and other source documents were reviewed due to his diagnosis of degenerative arthritis of the thoracolumbar spine with myofascial pain. The applicant’s condition did not meet retention standards as designated in Army Regulation 40-501. He was unable to perform duties expected of his military occupational specialty (MOS). Additional medical conditions considered during the MEB, where the preponderance of the evidence indicated the conditions had not limited or interfered with the performance of his duties, included: * persistent depression disorder with anxious distress * cervical strain with decreased lordosis * left knee patellofemoral pain syndrome * TBI * obstructive sleep apnea * tension headaches and migraine including migraine variants * internal hemorrhoids, shin tags * right dry eye syndrome and allergic conjunctivitis * left dry eye syndrome and allergic conjunctivitis * latent tuberculosis * allergic rhinitis * normal hearing with subjective tinnitus * right fourth metacarpal fracture prior to military; normal range of motion h. A DA Form 3947 (MEB Proceedings), shows an MEB convened on 28 September 2015, to consider the conditions referenced in the NARSUM. The applicant was referred to a PEB and on 14 October 2015, the applicant marked that he did not agree with the MEB findings and recommendation. An addendum to the MEB NARSUM, dated 8 October 2015, shows the applicant did not request an impartial medical review of his medical review board. i. The applicant’s MEB Counsel provided a rebuttal on behalf of the applicant, dated 14 October 2015, confirming he did not agree with the findings of the MEB dated 28 September 2015. Counsel noted the applicant had been provided temporary behavioral health profiles and the provider that issued them had concerns over suicidal ideations. The applicant was in treatment for depression and he believed that his limitations should cause the condition to fail medical retention standards. The two DA Forms 3349 were attached: * 10 February 2015 - shows the applicant was issued a temporary profile rating of 2 for physical capacity/stamina and 3 for psychiatric due to depression and recurrent suicidal ideation * 27 March 2015 - shows the applicant was issued a temporary profile rating of 2 for physical capacity/stamina and 3 for psychiatric due to suicidal thoughts due to anxiety and depression; the applicant was expected to be fully mission capable on 9 February 2016 and per policy, the applicant required a waiver to deploy j. On 14 October 2015, the IDES clinical psychologist reviewed the applicant’s rebuttal, his temporary profiles, the VA Initial Mental Disorders Comprehension and Pension (C&P) examination, the NARSUM, and BH records to render a decision. A review of the records showed the applicant had not been on profile with duty limitation for BH conditions since June 2015, that was noted by the MEB physician in the NARSUM. There was also documentation in the record, in the discharge note from May 2015, that the applicant denied he was suicidal and that he was psychiatrically hospitalized for 2 days due to a misunderstanding, further noted by the MEB physician in the NARSUM. There is documentation in the record, following completion of the NARSUM (7 October 2015) that the applicant approached his therapist and requested a memorandum stating he would fall below retention standards for a BH condition. According to the note, when the therapist informed him he would meet retention standards, he began to argue and he was informed he could obtain a second opinion. The predominance of the evidence continues to support the conclusion of that NARSUM that the applicant diagnosis of persistent depressive disorder with anxious distress would meet retention standards. The MEB Appellate Authority signed and dated the review on 15 October 2015. k. A DA Form 199 showed on 22 October 2015, an informal PEB convened and found the applicant physically unfit. The PEB recommended a rating of 20% and the applicant’s disposition be separation with severance pay. The disabling condition was degenerative arthritis of the thoracolumbar spine (VASRD Codes 5242-5243) with a rating of 20%. On 26 October 2015, the applicant concurred with the findings and waived a formal hearing. He did not request reconsideration of his VA ratings. (1) Section IV (Medical Conditions Determined Not to be Unfitting) listed the following additional conditions, the applicant was found fit for: * persistent depressive disorder with anxious distress * cervical strain with decreased lordosis * left knee patellofemoral pain syndrome * TBI * obstructive sleep apnea * tension headaches and migraine including migraine variants * internal hemorrhoids, shin tags * right dry eye syndrome and allergic conjunctivitis * left dry eye syndrome and allergic conjunctivitis * latent tuberculosis * allergic rhinitis * normal hearing with subjective tinnitus * right fourth metacarpal fracture prior to military; normal range of motion (2) Additionally, the PEB made the following findings in Section V (Administrative Determinations): * the disability disposition was not based on disease or injury incurred in the line of duty in combat with an enemy of the United States and as a direct result of armed conflict or caused by an instrumentality of war and incurred in the line of duty during a period of war (5 USC 8332, 3502, and 6303) * disability did result from a combat related injury under the provision of 26 USC 104 or 10 USC 10216 l. Orders 302-0039, dated 29 October 2015, discharged the applicant from active duty with a 20% disability rating effective 9 November 2015. m. He was honorably discharged from active duty on 9 November 2015. His DD Form 214 shows he completed 3 years, 1 month, and 1 day of active service. He was assigned separation code JEB and the narrative reason for separation listed as “Disability, Severance Pay, Non-Combat (Enhanced).” 5. On 18 March 2022, the USAPDA legal advisor rendered an advisory opinion in the processing of this case. He opined: a. The seminal issue the applicant was required to demonstrate was whether his behavioral health (BH) condition was unfitting at the time of his medical separation. The applicant was provided legal counsel and evoked some of his appellate rights. On review at the medical evaluation board (MEB), four medical providers, two of which were psychologists, found him to meet retention standards for his BH condition. Indeed, and IAW AR 40-501, Para. 3-1, 3-3 and 3-4, if his BH condition had reached the medical retention determination point (MRDP) he would have had to have that condition referred to the IDES. Instead of issuing him a permanent profile for his BH condition, his treating LCSW only issued him two temporary profiles, which both expired before his matter was reviewed by the PEB. Nonetheless, at the PEB, a sixth provider reviewed his BH condition and, ultimately, found it to be fitting. b. The applicant has not provided new evidence, that then existed, which would have warranted a finding of unfit for his BH condition. Instead, the applicant argues that a then non-existing version of AR 635-40 (19 January 2017) should be retroactively applied to his case. His central argument is that the current AR 635-40 (19 January 2017), paragraph 5-4e(2), would have required him to be found unfit for his BH condition because his expired temporary profiles prevented him from deploying to an austere environment. Setting aside the fact that the applicant’s BH profiles had expired; thus, meaning he could deploy to an austere environment, it is a ridiculous proposal that a future Army Regulation should be given retroactive effect, when it is not intended as such. c. The applicant has not demonstrated any evidence that his BH condition was an unfitting condition at the time of his medical separation on 9 November 2015. It does not matter if over a year later he might have been found unfit due to a future Army Regulation. The same would be true for a regulation that has not been written and will not take effect until 20 years from now. Six independent medical providers, including his own, found that the applicant’s BH condition did not warrant a permanent profile, which would have required IDES referral, and, only then, possibly a finding of unfit. Given the above, the applicant’s request is found to be legally insufficient. 6. On 22 March 2022, the advisory opinion (AO) was forwarded to the applicant for acknowledgment and/or response. Counsel’s rebuttal, dated 23 May 2022, is available for review by the Board and she states, in part: a. The AO does not address the central issue in this case- whether the applicant would have been found unfit had AR 635-40, paragraph 5-4e(2) been available to the applicant at the time of the discharge proceedings. The AO merely opines that it does not matter if over a year later he might have been found unfit due to a future Army regulation. On the contrary, it does matter whether he might have been found unfit due to a future Army regulation and for their opinion to be probative, the AO’s author needed to answer that question. b. The AO further noted that because applicant’s mental health condition profiles were temporary, and that they had expired, that AR 635-40, paragraph 5-4e(2) should not be retroactively applied to this case. However, AR 635-40, paragraph 5-4e(2) does not require a profile to be permanent in nature. Thus, the fact the profiles were temporary is irrelevant. Given that AR 635-40, Paragraph 5-4e(2) can be applied retroactively pursuant to 10 U.S.C. § 1553, 32 C.F.R. § 70.9(c)(1)(ii) and DoDI 1332.28 at E4.3.1.2, once the applicant was placed on those profiles, it would have triggered a MEB/PEB. c. Additionally, although the AO claims that six independent medical providers found that applicant’s BH condition did not warrant a permanent profile, none of these providers’ opinions considered his condition under the purview of AR 635-40, paragraph 5-4e(2) (because had not yet been implemented). Instead, the prior medical opinions only considered the retention standards of AR 40-501, Chapter 3. Thus, they are not probative as to whether applicant met the retention standards of AR 635-40, paragraph 5-4e(2), which is the central issue in this case. The applicant respectfully requests the Board find that a PEB is required to determine that very question. d. Additionally, the applicant further requests the Board consider that a PEB might find his mental health condition to be unfit, given that during his enlistment the applicant had two S3 profiles that met the criteria for unfit under AR 635-40, paragraph 5-4e(2). Had the PEB found him unfit, the proposed VA rating of 50% for his mental health condition would have been considered in his overall separation rating. The additional 50% rating would have increased his proposed 20% rating up to at least 30% thereby entitling him to medical retirement, not a medical separation. 7. By regulation (AR 40-501), medical evaluation of certain enlisted military occupational specialties and officer duty assignments in terms of medical conditions and physical defects are causes for rejection or medical unfitness for these specialized duties. If the profile is permanent the profiling officer must assess if the Soldier meets retention standards. Those Soldiers on active duty who do not meet retention standards must be referred to a medical evaluation board. 8. By regulation (AR 635-40), the Army disability system 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 or her office, grade, rank, or rating. The regulation states disability compensation is not an entitlement acquired by reason of service-incurred illness or injury; rather, it is provided to Soldiers whose service is interrupted and who can no longer continue to reasonably perform because of a physical disability incurred or aggravated in military service. 9. The Army rates only conditions determined to be physically unfitting at the time of discharge, which disqualify the Soldier from further military service. 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. 10. Title 38, United States 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. 11. 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/her 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. BOARD DISCUSSION: 1. After reviewing the application, all supporting documents, and the evidence found within the military record, the Board found that relief was not warranted. The Board carefully considered the applicant's record of service, documents submitted in support of the petition and executed a comprehensive and standard review based on law, policy and regulation. Upon review of the applicant’s petition, available military records and the medical and behavioral health review, the Board 2. 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 Board found 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 to amend the decision of the ABCMR set forth in Docket Numbers AR20160006243 on 20 March 2018 and Docket Number AR20180013324 on 7 April 2020. 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. REFERENCES: 1. Title 10, U.S. Code, chapter 61, provides the Secretaries of the Military Departments with authority to retire or discharge a member if they find the member unfit to perform military duties because of physical disability. The U.S. Army Physical Disability Agency is responsible for administering the Army physical disability evaluation system and executes Secretary of the Army decision-making authority as directed by Congress in chapter 61 and in accordance with DOD Directive 1332.18 and Army Regulation 635-40 (Physical Evaluation for Retention, Retirement, or Separation). a. Soldiers are referred to the disability system when they no longer meet medical retention standards in accordance with Army Regulation 40-501 (Standards of Medical Fitness), chapter 3, as evidenced in an MEB; when they receive a permanent medical profile rating of 3 or 4 in any factor and are referred by an MOS Medical Retention Board; and/or they are command-referred for a fitness-for-duty medical examination. b. The disability evaluation assessment process involves two distinct stages: the MEB and PEB. The purpose of the MEB is to determine whether the service member's injury or illness is severe enough to compromise his/her ability to return to full duty based on the job specialty designation of the branch of service. A PEB is an administrative body possessing the authority to determine whether or not a service member is fit for duty. A designation of "unfit for duty" is required before an individual can be separated from the military because of an injury or medical condition. Service members who are determined to be unfit for duty due to disability either are separated from the military or are permanently retired, depending on the severity of the disability and length of military service. Individuals who are "separated" receive a one-time severance payment, while veterans who retire based upon disability receive monthly military retired pay and have access to all other benefits afforded to military retirees. c. The mere presence of a medical impairment does not in and of itself justify a finding of unfitness. In each case, it is necessary to compare the nature and degree of physical disability present with the requirements of the duties the Soldier may reasonably be expected to perform because of his or her office, grade, rank, or rating. Reasonable performance of the preponderance of duties will invariably result in a finding of fitness for continued duty. A Soldier is physically unfit when a medical impairment prevents reasonable performance of the duties required of the Soldier's office, grade, rank, or rating. 2. Army Regulation 635-40 (Physical Evaluation for Retention, Retirement, or Separation) establishes 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. Only the unfitting conditions or defects and those which contribute to unfitness will be considered in arriving at the rated degree of incapacity warranting retirement or separation for disability. a. Paragraph 3-2 states disability compensation is not an entitlement acquired by reason of service-incurred illness or injury; rather, it is provided to Soldiers whose service is interrupted and who can no longer continue to reasonably perform because of a physical disability incurred or aggravated in military service. b. Paragraph 3-4 states Soldiers who sustain or aggravate physically-unfitting disabilities must meet the following line-of-duty criteria to be eligible to receive retirement and severance pay benefits: (1) The disability must have been incurred or aggravated while the Soldier was entitled to basic pay or as the proximate cause of performing active duty or inactive duty training. (2) The disability must not have resulted from the Soldier's intentional misconduct or willful neglect and must not have been incurred during a period of unauthorized absence. 3. Army Regulation 40-501 (Standards of Medical Fitness) governs medical fitness standards for enlistment, induction, appointment (including officer procurement programs), retention, and separation (including retirement). The Department of Veterans Affairs Schedule for Rating Disabilities. VASRD is used by the Army and the VA as part of the process of adjudicating disability claims. It is a guide for evaluating the severity of disabilities resulting from all types of diseases and injuries encountered as a result of or incident to military service. This degree of severity is expressed as a percentage rating which determines the amount of monthly compensation. 4. Department of Defense (DoD) Directive-Type Memorandum (DTM) 11-015 (Disability Evaluation System) explains the Integrated Disability Evaluation System (IDES). The version in effect at the time defined the IDES process and procedures. The guidelines within the DTM were incorporated in the DoD Manual Number 1332.18 (DES Manual: General Information and Legacy DES Time Standards). a. The IDES is the joint DoD-VA process by which DoD determines whether wounded, ill, or injured Service members are fit for continued military service and by which the DOD and the VA determine appropriate benefits for Service members who are separated or retired for a Service-connected disability. The IDES features a single set of disability medical examinations appropriate for fitness determination by the Military Departments and a single set of disability ratings provided by the VA for appropriate use by both departments. Although the IDES includes medical examinations, IDES processes are administrative in nature and are independent of clinical care and treatment. b. Unless otherwise stated in this DTM, DOD will follow the existing policies and procedures promulgated in DOD Directive 1332.18 (Disability Evaluation System (DES)) and the Under Secretary of Defense for Personnel and Readiness Memoranda. All newly-initiated, duty-related physical disability cases from the Departments of the Army, Air Force, and Navy at operating IDES sites will be processed in accordance with this DTM and follow the process described in this DTM unless the Military Department concerned approves the exclusion of the Service member due to special circumstances. Service members whose cases were initiated under the legacy DES process will not enter the IDES. c. IDES medical examinations will include a general medical examination and any other applicable medical examinations performed to VA compensation and pension (C&P) standards. Collectively, the examinations will be sufficient to assess the member’s referred and claimed condition(s) and assist the VA in ratings determinations and assist military departments with unfit determinations. d. Within 15 days of receiving the proposed disability ratings from the Disability Rating Activity Site (D-RAS), the PEB will apply the raring using the diagnostic code(s) provided by the D-RAS to the Service Member’s unfitting conditions and publish the disposition recommendation. For example, if the PEB identifies a condition to the D-RAS as “schizophreniform disorder”, but the D-RAS rates the condition as “psychotic disorder NOS (VASRD 9210), the PEB will apply the rating as “schizophophreniform disorder rated as psychotic disorder NOS (VASRD 9210). e. Upon separation from military service for medical disability and consistent with Board for Corrections of Military Records (BCMR) procedures of the Military Department concerned, the former Service member (or his or her designated representative) may request correction of his or her military records through his or her respective Military Department BCMR if new information regarding his or her service or condition during service is made available that may result in a different disposition. For example, a veteran appeals the VA’s disability rating of an unfitting condition based on a portion of his or her service treatment record that was missing during the IDES process. If the VA changes the disability rating for the unfitting condition based on a portion of his or her service treatment record that was missing during the IDES process and the change to the disability rating may result in a different disposition, the Service member may request correction of his or her military records through his or her respective Military Department BCMR. 5. Title 10, U.S. Code, section 1201, provides for the physical disability retirement of a member 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 of less than 30 percent. 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. //NOTHING FOLLOWS// ABCMR Record of Proceedings (cont) AR20210016984 1 ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 1