IN THE CASE OF: BOARD DATE: 26 May 2023 DOCKET NUMBER: AR20220007572 APPLICANT REQUESTS: in effect, reconsideration of his prior requests for . physical disability separation or retirement, or . reinstatement in the Army National Guard (ARNG) APPLICANT'S SUPPORTING DOCUMENT(S) CONSIDERED BY THE BOARD: . DD Form 149 (Application for Correction of Military Record) . email from Member of Congress’ Office . Privacy Act Release Form . DD Form 214 (Armed Forces of the United States Report of Transfer or Discharge) covering the period ending 21 June 1970 . DD Form 214 (Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty) covering the period ending 23 December 1984 . National Guard Bureau (NGB) Form 22 (Report of Separation and Record of Service) covering the period ending 4 June 1985 . DD Form 214 covering the period ending 9 May 1992 . NGB Form 22, covering the period ending 5 February 1995 FACTS: 1. Incorporated herein by reference are military records which were summarized in the previous consideration of the applicant's case by the Army Board for Correction of Military Records (ABCMR) in Docket Number AC95-10501 on 13 August 1997 and AR20050003350 on 18 January 2006. 2. The applicant states his medical discharge was illegal. He was not given advanced notice and he never signed a waiver. He was on a new enlistment and went to drill when he was told he was not needed any more. The result was he was given a medical discharge with no advance notice. He wants an investigation started to see what really happened. He believes that a sergeant first class (SFC) who continually harassed him was behind his discharge. 3. A DD Form 214 shows the applicant enlisted in the Regular Army on 22 June 1966. He served in Vietnam for 1 year, 6 months, and 17 days. He was honorably released from active duty on 21 June 1970, after 4 years of net active service, and transferred to the U.S. Army Reserve (USAR) Control Group (Reinforcement). 4. An NGB Form 22 shows the applicant enlisted in the ARNG on 3 November 1982. 5. A second DD Form 214 shows the applicant entered active duty on an Active Guard/Reserve (AGR) tour effective 22 December 1982. He was honorably released from active duty on 23 December 1984 and credited with 2 years and 2 days of net active service this period. 6. The applicant’s NGB Form 22 shows he was honorably discharged from the ARNG on 4 June 1985, and credited with 2 years, 6 months, and 2 days service this period. 7. A second NGB Form 22 shows the applicant again enlisted in the ARNG on 22 April 1988. 8. A ARNG Form 2173 (Statement of Medical Examination and Duty Status) shows the following: a. The applicant participated in Active Duty for Training with his ARNG unit from 21 April 1989 through 5 May 1989, at Camp Roberts, CA. b. On 4 May 1989, the applicant developed the abrupt onset of fever and weakness and was taken to the Camp Roberts Troop Medical Clinic (TMC) for treatment. At the TMC it was determined he would require a higher level of medical treatment due to the dispensary limitations and was admitted to Twin City Community Hospital for treatment. c. On 10 May 1989, the applicant’s unit commander signed the form indicating a formal Line of Duty (LOD) investigation was required and that the injury was considered to have been incurred in the LOD. 9. A DD Form 261 (Report of Investigation LOD and Misconduct Status), initiated on 13 July 1989 shows the following: a. The applicant was diagnosed with febrile episode -etiology not established, the onset of the illness being 4 May 1989 at Camp Roberts, CA. b. Medical records show the applicant developed a serious illness while in an Active Duty for Training status. His physician feels it is in the best interest of the Federal Government to continue the applicant’s medical treatment rather than convene a Medical Evaluation Board (MEB). The applicant has recovered, and no further medical treatment appears necessary at this time. The applicant sustained no permanent disability. c. On 9 November 1989, the Chief, NGB approved the illness as having been incurred in the LOD. 10. A second ARNG Form 2173 shows the following: a. While on Inactive Duty Training with his ARNG unit on 18 November 1990, the applicant experienced an acute sudden episode of anxiety with chronic right arm/shoulder pain. The doctor annotates on the form the applicant had previously experienced similar complaints. b. The applicant was seen by the medics, and they felt he should be transported by ambulance to the nearest facility, at which point he was transported by civilian ambulance to Emergency Department, , . c. On 24 November 1991, the applicant’s unit commander signed the form indicating a formal LOD investigation was required, and that the injury was considered to have been incurred in the LOD. 11. A third DD Form 214 shows the applicant was ordered to active Federal service in support of Operation Garden Plot for 9 days, from 1 May 1992 through 9 May 1992, when he was honorably released from active duty back to his ARNG unit. 12. A DA Form 2173 (Statement of Medical Examination and Duty Status) shows the applicant was seen as an outpatient at the 143rd Evacuation Hospital on 16 May 1992, for a flare up of an old injury to his left wrist status post carpal tunnel syndrome surgery. The form shows he was on active duty beginning 29 May 1992. The form is unsigned by the unit commander and there is no LOD determination indicated. 13. A ARNG, Headquarters, Third Battalion (Mechanized), 160th Infantry Memorandum, signed by First Lieutenant (1LT) , Support Platoon Leader, on 4 August 1992, shows the following: a. An LOD packet pertaining to the applicant was received on 28 May 1992. The incident in question occurred on 18 November 1990, at approximately 0700 hours in the privately owned vehicle (POV) of the Armory. The applicant was experiencing pain in his right arm and shoulder and was unable to exit his POV unassisted. Initial treatment was provided by the battalion medical platoon sergeant, who was unable to diagnose the applicant’s condition or determine the cause and a civilian ambulance was called. The ambulance transported the applicant to Hospital for emergency treatment. At that time, the applicant was unable to pay for medical treatment and wanted to be transported to a facility. He was evaluated and released from Hospital. b. After discussion with the applicant and on the basis of a witness statement from another service member, it is the finding of 1LT that the ARNG is not responsible for the applicant’s injury. The applicant has a history of pain in this area, and he was not performing military duty when he was treated. However, his history of pain may be attributable to an LOD in 1989. Presently, the applicant is requesting an MEB of is 1989 LOD to determine the level of responsibility of the ARNG. Until there is medical evidence linking this current LOD to the LOD in 1989, he felt the ARNG is in no way responsible for this incident. c. It was his opinion that no medical bills related to this LOD be paid by the ARNG. The Soldier’s injury was not in the LOD, and his civilian employer provided him with medical insurance that would have defrayed 65 percent of the medical fees and 100 percent of the ambulance fees. 14. A ARNG, Headquarters, Third Battalion (Mechanized), 160th Infantry Memorandum, signed by SFC , Personnel Administration Center (PAC) Supervisor, on 2 September 1992, shows the following: a. It was requested that an MEB convene to determine if the applicant was fit for continue duty. Two LOD investigations as well as medical documents were attached. b. The applicant was unable to participate in the Army Physical Fitness Test (APFT) for some time and stated he was unable to handle his assigned weapon due to his medical problems. 15. A DD Form 261, initiated on 5 August 1992, shows the following: a. The applicant’s acute anxiety episode and chronic right arm pain incurred on 18 November 1990, were not sustained in the LOD. Medical bills were the responsibility of the applicant and his civilian insurer. This LOD might be related to an LOD sustained in 1989. It was recommended that an MEB confirm or deny a link between these injuries/conditions and the 1989 LOD. b. On 16 September 1992, the Chief, NGB, approved the form, determining the 18 November 1990 conditions were not in the LOD, not due to own misconduct, and existed prior to service (EPTS) with no service aggravation. 16. The applicant’s final NGB Form 22 shows he was honorably discharged from the ARNG on 5 February 1995, under the provisions of National Guard Regulation 600-200 (Enlisted Personnel Management), paragraph 8-26, due to medical unfitness for retention standards. He was credited with 6 years, 9 months, and 14 days of net service this period, 4 years and 2 days of prior Reserve service, and 4 years prior active Federal service. 17. The applicant’s NGB Form 23 (ARNG Retirement Points History Statement) shows he completed 12 years, 4 months, and 18 days of creditable service for retired pay. 18. A memorandum from the Headquarters, ARNG to the Chief, NGB, dated 22 June 1995, shows the following: a. The ARNG requested an evaluation of the attached medical documents pertaining to the applicant. He was recently evaluated by a State medical board for retention purposes and was found to be non-retainable. However, as a result of that action, additional documents have been provided from his treating physician that raise doubts regarding the validity of the applicant’s original LOD report and/or may establish his eligibility to be referred into the MEB/PEB system. b. The formal LOD report was approved in 1989 for the condition of febrile episode-etiology not established. The most recent documents, dated 31 May 1994, indicated that this Solider in fact has Epstein-Barr Virus and that this has been a recurring problem since the 1989 episode. c. It is possible that the 1989 diagnosis and LOD report were erroneous, and that the applicant was ill from Epstein-Barr Virus at that time. It is also unknown if that condition was preexisting before the 1989 incident or if it originated during that period of service. While they would normally initiate a new formal LOD investigation to clarify the matter, in this case of the amount of time elapsed since the incident (6 years) precludes any investigation other than a review of records. d. Comment regarding the appropriateness of initiating a new formal LOD report and/or any other actions appropriate for resolution of this case are requested. 19. A memorandum from the NGB, ARNG Chief Surgeon to the CAARNG, dated 12 July 1995, shows the following: a. A review of the packet of information sent pertaining to the applicant reveals he was found unfit for further military duty by the State Medical Duty Review Board (SMDRB), in accordance with Army Regulation 40-501 (Standards of Medical Fitness), chapter 3. b. The applicant has an approved formal LOD from 1989 for a febrile episode – etiology not established. A recent evaluation reveals he is suffering from the Epstein­ Barr Virus and its complications. The State is questioning if there is any relationship between the 1989 episode and the current condition and if a new LOD would be helpful. c. A review of the hospitalization record included in the file reveals a final diagnosis of unspecified gastroenteritis and pyrexia. The discharge summary states the applicant was tested for the cytomegalovirus (CMV) and mononucleosis, which are caused by the Epstein-Barr Virus. Both tests were negative. d. It does not appear that the 1989 incident is related to the applicant’s current Epstein-Barr viral condition with its complications and there is no need for a new LOD in this case. 20. The applicant previously applied to the ABCMR in 1997, requesting, in effect, physical disability retirement or separation. In conjunction with the adjudication of this case, the Army Review Boards Agency (ARBA) medical advisor provided an advisory opinion dated 28 July 1997, which shows the following: a. The applicant was separated from the ARNG on 5 February 1995 due to being medically unfit for retention. A letter from Dr. , dated 31 May 1994, contends the applicant’s current unfitting condition of chronic fatigue syndrome, caused by the Epstein-Barr Virus, is related to a course of hospitalization in May 1989. b. The hospital admission note, dated 5 May 1989, indicates either an acute febrile illness, probable viral gastroenteritis or hyperthermia (heat stroke). All laboratory tests during that hospitalization were negative for an infective agent. The blood tests looking specifically for the Epstein-Barr Virus were negative. Event the IGM test which checks for the presence of the Epstein-Barr Virus in false negative tests, and is 100 percent positive in the presence of Epstein-Barr Virus, was negative. They symptoms presented by the applicant in 1989 are classical for someone suffering a heat injury. The applicant admits having a heat stroke on two previous occasions. Furthermore, there is no evidence of lymphadenopathy or swollen lymph nodes on any of the hospital physicals, one of the signs specific for Epstein-Barr Virus infection. c. There is no indication that the hospitalization in 1989 is related in any way to the diagnosis that led to the applicant’s separation as medically unfit for retention and there is no basis for claim of medical retirement. 21. On 13 August 1997, the Board denied the applicant’s request, determining the evidence did not demonstrate the existence of a probable error or injustice. 22. The applicant again applied to the ABCMR; requesting, in effect, back pay, promotion and reinstatement into the ARNG because his discharge for medical unfitness was accomplished under false pretenses and an injustice. On 18 January 2006, the Board denied the applicant’s request, determining the overall merits of the case were insufficient as a basis for correction of his records. 23. Based on the applicant’s condition the Army Review Boards Agency (ARBA) medical staff provided a medical review for the Board members. See "MEDICAL REVIEW" section. 22. MEDICAL REVIEW: a. The Army Review Boards Agency (ARBA) Medical Advisor was asked to review this case. Documentation reviewed included the applicant’s ABCMR application and accompanying documentation, the military electronic medical record (AHLTA), the VA electronic medical record (JLV), the electronic Physical Evaluation Board (ePEB), the Medical Electronic Data Care History and Readiness Tracking (MEDCHART) application, and the Interactive Personnel Electronic Records Management System (iPERMS). The ARBA Medical Advisor made the following findings and recommendations: b. The applicant is again applying to the ABCMR requesting, in essence, a referral to the Disability Evaluation System. He states: “My medical discharge was illegal. I was not given advanced notice. I never signed a waiver.” c. The Record of Proceedings details the applicant’s military service and the circumstances of the case. His Report of Separation and Record of Service (NGB Form 22) for the period of Service under consideration shows he entered the Army National Guard on 22 April 1988 and received an honorable discharge from the Army National Guard (ARNG) effective 5 February 1995 under authority provided in paragraph 8-26y of NGR 600-200, Enlisted Personnel Management: Medically unfit for retention standards of chapter 3, AR 40-501 {Standards of Medical Fitness}. It shows a total of 18 years, 3 months, and 5 days of total service for retired pay. d. This request was previously denied by the ABCMR on in full on 13 August 1997 (AC95-10501) and 18 January 2006 (AR20050003350). e. A 13 July 1989 Report of Investigation – Line of Duty and Misconduct Status (DD Form 261) shows a formal line of duty investigation was completed by the National Guard Bureau for a 2-week febrile illness the applicant sustained while on annual active duty for training in the spring of 1989. They found the illness was incurred in the line of duty and had completely resolved: “As indicated on attached medical records, SGT {Applicant} developed a serious illness while on Active Duty for Training status. SGT {Applicant}’s physician feels that it is in the best interest of the Federal Government to continue medical treatment rather than convene a Medical Evaluation Board. SGT {Applicant} has recovered and no further medical treatment appears necessary at this time. SGT {Applicant} sustained no permanent disability.” f. A second DD Form 261 shows a formal line of duty investigation was completed by the National Guard Bureau on 5 August 1992 for an episode of acute anxiety and chronic right arm pain. They found these conditions were not incurred in the line of duty, were not due to the Soldier’s misconduct, and were not a permanent service aggravation of conditions which had existed prior to Service: 1. Injury was not sustained in line of duty. 2. Medical bills are the responsibility of the service member’s civilian insurer. 3. This LOD may be related to a LOD {line of duty} sustained in 1989 4. Recommend medical board this LOD for 1989 LOD to confirm or deny a link to this LOD g. If bullet #4 was executed, the results are not available for review. A second such request was made by the ARNG on 22 June 1995. The request states the applicant had been found unfit for retention but questioned the findings of the 1989 formal LOD investigation. “This soldier was recently evaluated by a state medical board for retention purposes. He was found to be non-retainable. However, as a result of that action additional documents have been provided from his treating physician that raise doubts regarding the validity of his original line of duty report and/or may establish his eligibility to be referred into the MEB/PEB system. The formal line of duty report was approved in 1989 for the condition of "febrile episode-etiology not established". The most recent documents (31 May 94) indicate that in fact the soldier has Epstein-Barr Virus and that this has been a recurring problem since the 1989 episode. It is possible that the 1989 diagnosis and line of duty report were erroneous and that the soldier was ill from Epstein-Barr Virus at that time ... While we would normally initiate a new formal line of duty investigation to clarify the matter, in this case the amount of elapsed time (6 years) since the incident precludes any investigation other than a review of records. Request your comment regarding the appropriateness of initiating a new formal line of duty report and/or any other actions appropriate for resolution of this case.” h. In his 12 July 1995 response, the Chief Surgeon of the Army Nation Guard stated that the 1989 and 1994 episodes were unrelated: “A review of the hospitalization record {from 1989} that is included in the file reveals a final diagnosis of Unspecified Gastroenteritis and Pyrexia. The discharge summary states the soldier was tested for the cytomegalovirus (CMV) and mononucleosis which is caused by the Epstein-Barr Virus. Both tests were negative. It does not appear that the 1989 incident is related to his current Epstein-Barr Viral condition with its complications. I do not see a need for a new LOD in this case.” i. From the medical opinion for AC95-10501: “The letter from Dr. ., M.D. dated 31 May 1994, contends applicant's current unfitting condition of Chronic Fatigue Syndrome, caused by the Epstein-Barr Virus (EBV), is related to a course of hospitalization in May 1989. The admission note dated 05 May 1989 indicates either an Acute febrile illness, probable viral gastroenteritis, versus Hyperthermia (heat stroke). All laboratory tests during that hospitalization were negative for an infective agent. The blood tests looking specifically for the EBV were negative. Even the IGM test which checks for the presence of the EBV in false negative tests, and is 100% positive in the presence of EBV, was negative. The symptoms presented by the applicant in 1989 are classical for someone suffering a heat injury. The applicant admits having heat stroke on two previous occasions. Furthermore, there is no evidence of lymphadenopathy or swollen lymph nodes on any of the hospital physicals, one of the signs specific for EBV infection. There is no indication that, the hospitalization in 1989 is related in any way to the diagnosis that led to the applicant's separation as Medically Unfit for Retention. There is no basis for claim of medical retirement. j. Though the applicant had more than 15 but less than 20 years of qualifying service for retirement, he is not eligible to retire under 10 U.S. Code § 12731b, Special rule for members with physical disabilities not incurred in line of duty (15-year notice of eligibility) as this statute was passed in 1999, or four years after his separation form the ARNG. This statute authorizes the Secretary concerned to treat a member of the Selected Reserve who no longer meets the qualifications for membership in the Selected Reserve solely because the member is unfit due to physical disability not incurred in the line of duty as having met the service requirements for years of service computed under 10 U.S. Code § 12732. The Secretary can then provide the member with a notification that the member has completed at least 15, and less than 20 of service. This “15-year Notice of Eligibility” authorizes a non-regular retirement. k. Review of his records in JLV shows he has been awarded multiple VA service-connected disability ratings, but none are related to the condition for which he was separated from the ARNG. The DES compensates an individual only for service incurred condition(s) which have been determined to disqualify him or her from further military service. The DES has neither the role nor the authority to compensate service members for anticipated future severity or potential complications of conditions which were incurred or permanently aggravated during their military service. That role and authority is granted by Congress to the Department of Veterans Affairs and executed under a different set of laws. l. It is the opinion of the ARBA Medical Advisor that a referral of his case to the Disability Evaluation System remains unwarranted. 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 applicant’s contentions, the military record, a medical advisory opinion, and regulatory guidance were carefully considered. The Board concurred with the advisory official finding the applicant was not eligible to retire under 10 U.S. Code § 12731b, Special rule for members with physical disabilities not incurred in line of duty (15-year notice of eligibility) as this statute was passed in 1999, or four years after his separation form the ARNG. The Board further noted although the applicant has been awarded multiple VA service-connected disability ratings, none are related to the condition for which he was separated from the ARNG. Based upon a preponderance of the evidence, the Board determined there is insufficient evidence that shows a disability retirement was warranted during his period of service and the applicant is ineligible for reinstatement. 2. The Board agreed that the VA provides post-service support and benefits for service connected medical conditions. The VA operates under different laws and regulations than the Department of Defense (DOD). In essence, the VA will compensate for all service connected disabilities. 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 to amend the decision of the ABCMR set forth in Docket Number AR20050003350 on 18 January 2006. 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 (Disability 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 a Medical Evaluation Board (MEB); when they receive a permanent medical profile rating of 3 or 4 in any factor and are referred by an Military Occupational Specialty (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 Physical Evaluation Board (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 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. 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. 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 provides information on medical fitness standards for induction, enlistment, appointment, retention, and related policies and procedures. Soldiers with conditions listed in chapter 3 who do not meet the required medical standards will be evaluated by an MEB and will be referred to a PEB as defined in Army Regulation 635–40 with the following caveats: a. U.S. Army Reserve (USAR) or Army National Guard (ARNG) Soldiers not on active duty, whose medical condition was not incurred or aggravated during an active duty period, will be processed in accordance with chapter 9 and chapter 10 of this regulation. b. Reserve Component Soldiers pending separation for In the Line of Duty injuries or illnesses will be processed in accordance with Army Regulation 40-400 (Patient Administration) and Army Regulation 635-40. c. Normally, Reserve Component Soldiers who do not meet the fitness standards set by chapter 3 will be transferred to the Retired Reserve per Army Regulation 140–10 (USAR Assignments, Attachments, Details, and Transfers) or discharged from the Reserve Component per Army Regulation 135–175 (Separation of Officers), Army Regulation 135–178 (ARNG and Reserve Enlisted Administrative Separations), or other applicable Reserve Component regulation. They will be transferred to the Retired Reserve only if eligible and if they apply for it. d. Reserve Component Soldiers who do not meet medical retention standards may request continuance in an active USAR status. In such cases, a medical impairment incurred in either military or civilian status will be acceptable; it need not have been incurred only in the line of duty. Reserve Component Soldiers with non-duty related medical conditions who are pending separation for not meeting the medical retention standards of chapter 3 may request referral to a PEB for a determination of fitness in accordance with paragraph 9–12. 4. 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. 5. National Guard Regulation 600-200 (Enlisted Personnel Management) prescribes he criteria, policies, processes, procedures and responsibilities to classify, assign utilize, transfer within and between States, provides special duty assignment pay, separate and appoint to and from Command Sergeant Major ARNG and Army National Guard of the Unites States enlisted Soldiers. Chapter 8, in effect at the time, provides for the separation of Soldier found medically unfit for retention per Army Regulation 40-501. 6. Title 10, U.S. Code, section 1556 requires the Secretary of the Army to ensure that an applicant seeking corrective action by the Army Review Boards Agency (ARBA) be provided with a copy of any correspondence and communications (including summaries of verbal communications) to or from the Agency with anyone outside the Agency that directly pertains to or has material effect on the applicant's case, except as authorized by statute. ARBA medical advisory opinions and reviews are authored by ARBA civilian and military medical and behavioral health professionals and are therefore internal agency work product. Accordingly, ARBA does not routinely provide copies of ARBA Medical Office recommendations, opinions (including advisory opinions), and reviews to Army Board for Correction of Military Records applicants (and/or their counsel) prior to adjudication. //NOTHING FOLLOWS//