IN THE CASE OF: BOARD DATE: 28 July 2023 DOCKET NUMBER: AR20220010849 APPLICANT REQUESTS: * physical disability retirement in lieu of honorable discharge due to expiration term of service (ETS) * personal appearance before the Board APPLICANT'S SUPPORTING DOCUMENT(S) CONSIDERED BY THE BOARD: * DD Form 149 (Application for Correction of Military Record) * service medical records in excess of 200 pages * Initial Evaluation of Residuals of Traumatic Brain Injury (TBI) Disability Benefits Questionnaire, 26 May 2021 * Headaches (Including Migraine Headaches) Disability Benefits Questionnaire, 26 May 2021 * Initial Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD) Disability Benefits Questionnaire, 26 May 2021 * General Medical – Separation Health Assessment Non-IDES (Integrated Disability Evaluation System), 10 July 2021 * DD Form 214 (Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty), covering the period ending 24 July 2021 * Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) letter, 29 August 2022 FACTS: 1. The applicant states: a. He is requesting his honorable discharge be changed to medical retirement. He was specifically asked what he wanted to do with regard to his discharge, to separate at his ETS or to go through a Medical Evaluation Board (MEB). At that time, he had a little over 12 months left in the military. The provider told him that an MEB did not seem feasible; however he was aware that he may extend in order to meet an MEB requirement. b. The medical provider and his unit failed on two separate occasions to get him into an intensive outpatient program at Landstuhl Regional Medical Center (LRMC) to help with the issues arising from his PTSD, which was constantly documented throughout his career and poorly treated. Not only did they fail him with his PTSD, but he had a multitude of other health/medical issues not being taken seriously throughout his career. c. He was given a 100 percent total and permanent disability rating through the VA after just his first claim upon separating on 24 July 2021. He believes he was done an injustice by the military after 13 years of exemplary service, attempting to self-cope and seek necessary treatment for all his ailments while service. If it weren’t for all of his issues being disregarded, not being fully and effectively evaluated and treated, he does believe he would have attempted to complete 20 years of service. After doing constant research on the subject and contacting multiple agencies, he was informed of this application process as a way to correct the injustice. 2. The applicant enlisted in the Regular Army on 6 August 2008. 3. The applicant twice deployed to Afghanistan, during the following periods: * from 29 July 2009 through 16 February 2010 * from 2 February 2012 through 2 February 2013 4. The applicant provided service medical records in excess of 200 pages, which have been provided in full to the Board for review, of note are the following: a. A Pre-Deployment Assessment, dated 30 October 2015, shows the applicant had anxiety issues following his deployment, but the anxiety pretty well resolved itself over time and the only thing that currently bothered him was his inattention, concentration, and focus problems which increased to the point of not being able to manage them. He reported having a long history of attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD), which was first diagnosed in elementary school. He had been able to manage symptoms until recently when his responsibilities got to the point he was no longer able to manage everything and was prescribed Adderall. He reported a history of combat trauma as well as the death of his brother. His listed diagnoses is ADHD, unspecified. b. A U.S. European Command (USEUCOM) Waiver Request, dated January 2017, shows a waiver was initiated pre-deployment to Poland and Germany for 9 months in January 2017. His current PULHES (acronym of the Military Physical Profile Serial System to classify physical abilities in terms of 6 factors) was “1” in all factors. In October 2015, the applicant reported concentration and focus problems increasing to the point of not being able to manage them and a long history of ADHD. He previously tried Wellbutrin due to not wanting to be on a stimulant and require a waiver for deployment, but due to reporting headaches from the Wellbutrin in September 2016, was prescribed Adderall. He had no limitations imposed by his condition or medication and his prognosis was good. The applicant’s waiver was approved by the USEUCOM Surgeon General. c. A Periodic Health Assessment, dated 10 February 2021, shows the location of the applicant’s last deployment was Latvia in October 2017. He indicated he received behavioral health counseling for a mental health condition or concern such as, but not limited to PTSD, depression, anxiety disorder, alcohol abuse or substance abuse. The potential need for provider notification or referral/consult was not required and the applicant was deemed deployable. The applicant was scheduled to leave Germany upon his ETS, following completion of behavioral health treatment on 11 March 2020. 5. The applicant’s available service and medical records do not contain any DA Forms 3349 (Physical Profile). 6. The applicant’s available service and medical records do not show: * he was issued a permanent physical profile rating * he suffered from a medical condition, physical or mental, that affected his ability to perform the duties required by his MOS and/or grade or rendered him unfit for military service * he was diagnosed with a medical condition that warranted his entry into the Army Physical Disability Evaluation System (PDES) * he was diagnosed with a condition that failed retention standards and/or was unfitting 7. A DA Form 2166-9-2 (Noncommissioned Officer Evaluation Report (NCOER) (SSG – 1SG/MSG)), covering the period from 29 April 2020 through 24 May 2021, shows the following: * the applicant was rated as “Exceeded Standard” or “Met Standard” in all portions of Part IV (Performance Evaluation, Professionalism, Attributes, and Competencies) by his Rater * he was rated “Exceeded Standard” by his Senior Rater * comments shows “No APFT [Army Physical Fitness Test] due to Covid-19 mitigations; the section for physical profile and date is left blank 8. A review of the U.S. Army Human Resources Command (AHRC) Soldier Management System (SMS), Physical Data screen pertaining to the applicant shows the following: * the date of his last physical was 12 September 2022 * the date of his last physical profile rating was June 2022 * he had a PULHES rating of “1” in all factors with no limitations * his Post-Deployment Health Reassessment (PDHRA) status was C (current) * his PDHRA Medical Readiness Classification Code (MRCC) was “2” due to items that can be corrected in less than 72 hours * he passed his last APFT in April 2020 9. An Initial Evaluation of Residuals of Traumatic Brain Injury (TBI) Disability Benefits Questionnaire, dated 26 May 2021, shows a psychiatrist diagnosed the applicant with TBI after head injury in 2009 when he was slapped on the forehead by a cable and having a superficial hematoma. Computed tomography (CT) scan in 2015 was normal. He complained of mild memory loss and headaches. The applicant’s memory deficits were deemed due to TBI with all other emotional/behavioral signs and symptoms due to mental health conditions. His headaches were most likely due to TBI. 10. A Headaches (Including Migraine Headaches) Disability Benefits Questionnaire, dated 26 May 2021, shows the applicant was diagnosed by a psychiatrist with post- concussive migraine, due to a head injury in 2009. His symptoms included migraine episodes lasing 30 minutes daily which impact his ability to work. 11. An Initial Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD) Disability Benefits Questionnaire, dated 26 May 2021, shows the applicant was diagnosed by a psychiatrist with PTSD that conforms to DSM-5 criteria. His symptoms included depressed mood, anxiety, panic attacks that occur weekly or less often and chronic sleep impairment which result in occupational and social impairment with reduced reliability and productivity. 12. A General Medical – Separation Health Assessment Non-IDES (Integrated Disability Evaluation System), dated 10 July 2021, shows the applicant had the following conditions: * head, face, neck and scalp conditions of headache and scar on the eyebrow resulting from a head injury in 2009 * sinusitis since 2012 * gum pain since 2012 * ringing of the ears since 2009 * chest pain (pneumonia, resolved) in 2009 * hemorrhoids since 2012 * abdominal pain since 2012 * wrist pain, elbow pain, shoulder pain since 2012 * leg pain, right ankle pain since 2011 * foot pain since 2011 * lumbosacral pain without vertebral fracture in 2009 * L4L5 hip pain * tinnitus 13. The applicant’s DD Form 214 shows he was honorably discharged on 24 July 2021 due to completion of required service and credited with 12 years, 11 months, and 19 days of net active service. 14. A VA letter, dated 29 August 2022, shows the applicant his totally and permanently disabled due solely to his service-connected disabilities with a rating of 100 percent effective 25 July 2021. 15. 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. 16. Title 38, USC, 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. 17. Title 38, CFR, 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. 18. 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 (EMR) (AHLTA and or MHS Genesis), the VA electronic medical record (JLV), the electronic Physical Evaluation Board (ePEB), the Medical Electronic Data Care History and Readiness Tracking (MEDCHART) application, and/or the Interactive Personnel Electronic Records Management System (iPERMS). The ARBA Medical Advisor made the following findings and recommendations: b. The applicant is applying to the ABCMR in essence requesting a referral to the Disability Evaluation System (DES). He states: “I was specifically asked what I wanted to do in regard to my discharge, ETS or Med-board. At that time, I had a little over 12 months left in the military. The provider told me that a Medboard did not seem feasible. However, I was aware one may extend in order meet a Med-board requirement. The provider and my unit failed on two separate occasions to get me into an intensive outpatient program in Landstuhl in order to help with the issues arising from my PTSD which was constantly documented throughout my career and poorly treated. Not only did they fail multiple times with my PTSD, but I had a multitude of health/medical issues not being taken seriously throughout my career. I was given a 100% T&P [total and permanent] disability through the Veterans Affairs after just my first Claim upon separating 24 July 2021. I believe I was done an injustice by the Military after 13 years of exemplary service attempting to self-cope/seek necessary treatment with all my ailments while serving. If not for all my issues being disregarded, not being fully, effectively, and evaluated/treated I do believe I would have attempted to do 20 years of service. After doing constant research on the subject and contacting agencies I was informed of this form and way to correct the injustice.” c. The Record of Proceedings details the applicant’s military service and the circumstances of the case. His DD 214 for the period of Service under consideration shows the former Wheeled Vehicle Mechanic (91B30) entered the regular Army on 6 August 2008 and was honorably discharged at the completion of his required active service on 24 July 2021 under provisions provided in Chapter 4 of AR 635-200, Active Duty Enlisted Administrative Separations (19 December 2016). d. Soldiers are referred to the DES when a commander refers their Soldier for a fitness evaluation and/or they receive a duty limiting permanent profile for a duty incurred illness or injury. Paragraph 5-17b or AR 635-200: “When a commander determines that a Soldier has a physical or mental condition that potentially interferes with assignment to or performance of duty, the commander will refer the Soldier for a medical examination and/or mental status evaluation in accordance with AR 40–501.” e. Paragraph 4-4 of AR 635–40, Physical Evaluation for Retention, Retirement, or Separation (19 January 2017) is titled “Waiver of Disability Evaluation System.” “DES process, their right to a PEB, and the potential benefits of remaining in an active duty or active Reserve status for purposes of completing the DES process. The Soldier will be advised that they have the right to consult with a SMEBC prior to waiving referral to the MEB or informal physical evaluation board (IPEB). The Soldier must request a waiver in writing and such request, or an affidavit, must attest that the Soldier has received the information described above and declines referral to the PEB. The waiver must be filed in the Soldier’s health records and official personnel record. Waiver requests are authorized in the circumstances listed below. f. Subparagraphs a-c list the circumstances under which a Soldier may request to waive their entrance into the DES: a. The Soldier's conditions existed prior to service (EPTS). b. The DES process would likely require extension past the date of the Soldier’s ETS and the Soldier does not consent to retention. c. The DES process would likely require extension past a Soldier’s established retirement date (other than retirement under the Temporary Early Retirement Authority), and the Soldier does not wish to delay retirement. g. There is no evidence the applicant was ever referred for a fitness evaluation or to the DES. While paragraph 4-4b appears to have been applicable, there is no evidence the applicant requested to waive his entrance into the DES as was required. h. EMR review shows the applicant self-referred to behavioral health in 2019. From his 6 May 2019 encounter: “History of Present Illness: This patient is a 31-year-old, divorced active duty SSG E6 with 11 years TIS [time in service] and 10 months TIU [time in unit]- 3-2 [3rd Squadron, 2d Cavalry Regiment]. Patient is a self-referral to BH due to post combat sxs [symptoms], sleep difficulties and relationship problems. Patient endorsed the following: worrying about everything, isolation, withdrawn, crying spells, low mood, low interest, and suicidal thoughts. Patient shared that ‘sxs intensified since JAN 2019’, after he ‘took over the platoon sergeant position.’ Current presentation (Pt. self-report): Patient came in to follow up, reported that he ‘feels better’- shared that he ‘talked to ex-wife and she recommended to get time for myself and suggested to request a compassionate reassignment so I am closer to the kids.’ - Patient shared that he ‘talked to COC about compassionate reassignment and they are supportive.’ Patient reported that he ‘would like to be closer to kids’ that live in Colorado with his ex-wife. Patient then, processed improvements, shared that he ‘feels better since taking medications,’ currently on Adderall and Wellbutrin, indicated that he ‘put distance with girlfriend, it was an unhealthy relationship.’ In regards previous sxs reported, shared that he ‘feels better, no SI [suicidal ideation]'- he was able to contract for safety- reviewed a safety plan and proceeded to discuss coping skills for anxiety and post combat sxs.” i. His diagnosis was “Adjustment disorder with mixed anxiety and depressed mood” and he was released without limitations. j. In September 2019, his provider discussed the possibility of the applicant entering an intensive outpatient (IOP) treatment program with the applicant’s commander who “indicate that he support’s SM’s treatment and the start date was discussed. The Soldier was NOT present for this meeting. From his 15 October 2019 behavioral health encounter: “Patient came in to follow up, reported that he will go to IOP in JAN 2020, shared that the new date is ‘better’ so he is able to attend the military ball in DEC which he is being part of. He also indicated that since his unit is deploying to Poland in JAN 2020, attending the IOP in JAN " works better" for the unit as well since a replacement for his position should be assigned. He also reported that he "might be moved to RSS [Regimental Support Squadron]’. In regards previous sxs endorsed, shared that he " continues to have them on and off"- reviewed coping mechanisms.” k. Subsequent encounters show the applicant appears to have lost interest in the IOP program in the following months. From a 21 February 2020 administrative encounter: “Contacted the chief of the Evolution program, Dr. M.J. to obtain clarifications on referral submitted in SEPT 2019. Per Dr. M.J. reports, the Evolution program have contacted SM multiple occasions in which he ‘did not show any interest’ - last report indicated that SM ‘reported he was going to Poland’- therefore the referral submitted by this provider was closed by Evolution due to lack of interest from SM and time lapse.” His 11 March 2020 encounter is the final encounter available for review and shows he did not deploy to Poland: “Current presentation (Pt. self-report): Patient came in to follow up per his request- last face to face contact with BH was in OCT 2019. Patient started session by processing improvements in mood which it was also reflected in BHDP - discussed coping mechanisms used and reviewed DBT/CBT strategies. He indicated that he was moved to RearD [Rear Detachment] after his unit went to Poland, shared he ‘likes current job’ and ‘hopes’ he can remain at new job until ETS in APR 2021. Then, proceeded to assist patient process upcoming ETS triggered after he submitted a DEADSTATEMENT, patient indicated that he ‘thought about it’ for approximately a year and decided he ‘wanted to ETS from Germany.’ Patient indicated he is ‘looking forward to ETS and join the Reserves,’ indicated that he ‘will enjoy to continue to be part of the military but not as active duty.’” l. The applicant’s only other clinical encounter during this time was for an upper respiratory tract infection. m. His final two NCO Evaluation Reports show he was fit and continued to perform well. His penultimate NCOER shows he “maintained his personal APFT [Army Physical Fitness] score above 290 for rated period; pushed his Soldiers to raise their own by over 20 points.” His rater marked him as having Exceeded Standard” and his senior rater marked him as “Highly Qualified” opining: “He has shown a consistent ability to complete any task given with very little guidance. He displayed commendable effort as Platoon SGT serving above his grade. Promote with peers and send to SLC [Senior Leader Course] when available.” n. His final NCOER with a thru date of 24 May 2021 shows there was “No APFT due to Covid-19 mitigations.” His rater marked him as having exceeded standard and his senior rater marked him as “Qualified.” o. Review of his records in MHS Genesis show the applicant completed periodic health and mental health assessments on 12 September 2022. His physical address is listed as Rose Barrack South Camp, Building 118, Grafenwöhr, Germany. Grafenwöhr is widely known for the United States Army military installation and training area, called Grafenwöhr Training Area (Tower Barracks), located directly south and west of the town. He rated his overall health over the past month as “Good.” p. Review of his records in JLV shows he has been awarded multiple VA service- connected disability ratings, including one for migraine headaches (50%) and one for PTSD (50%). However, the DES only compensates an individual for service incurred medical 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; or which did not cause or contribute to the termination of their military career. These roles and authorities are granted by Congress to the Department of Veterans Affairs and executed under a different set of laws. q. It is the opinion of the Agency Medical Advisor that referral of his case to the DES 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 found that relief was not warranted. The Board carefully considered the applicant’s contentions, the military record, and regulatory guidance. Evidence of record shows that he passed his last physical and his final two NCO Evaluation Reports show he was fit and continued to perform well. Further, his final NCOER shows he exceeded standards and his senior rater marked him as qualified. The Board noted the applicant’s reference to the Department of Veterans Affairs having awarded him various service-connected disabilities. However, the VA and DoD serve different purposes and operate under different rules, laws, and regulations when assigning disability percentages. As such variance between VA disability ratings and those of the Army do not reflect an error or injustice. Based on the preponderance of evidence available for review, the Board determined the evidence presented insufficient to warrant a recommendation for relief and referral to the Disability Evaluation System is not warranted. 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. REFERENCES: 1. On 25 August 2017, the Office of the Undersecretary of Defense for Personnel and Readiness issued clarifying guidance for the Secretary of Defense Directive to DRBs and BCM/NRs when considering requests by veterans for modification of their discharges due in whole or in part to: mental health conditions, including PTSD, traumatic brain injury, sexual assault, or sexual harassment. Boards are to give liberal consideration to veterans petitioning for discharge relief when the application for relief is based, in whole or in part, on those conditions or experiences. 2. 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 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. 3. 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. c. The percentage assigned to a medical defect or condition is the disability rating. A rating is not assigned until the PEB determines the Soldier is physically unfit for duty. Ratings are assigned from the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Schedule for Rating Disabilities (VASRD). The fact that a Soldier has a condition listed in the VASRD does not equate to a finding of physical unfitness. An unfitting, or ratable condition, is one which renders the Soldier unable to perform the duties of their office, grade, rank, or rating in such a way as to reasonably fulfill the purpose of their employment on active duty. There is no legal requirement in arriving at the rated degree of incapacity to rate a physical condition which is not in itself considered disqualifying for military service when a Soldier is found unfit because of another condition that is disqualifying. 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. 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. 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. 6. 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. 7. 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. 8. Army Regulation 15-185 (Army Board for Correction of Military Records (ABCMR)) prescribes the policies and procedures for correction of military records by the Secretary of the Army acting through the ABCMR. Paragraph 2-11 states applicants do not have a right to a formal hearing before the ABCMR. The Director or the ABCMR may grant a formal hearing whenever justice requires. //NOTHING FOLLOWS// ABCMR Record of Proceedings (cont) AR20220010849 1 ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 1