IN THE CASE OF: BOARD DATE: 18 October 2023 DOCKET NUMBER: AR20220011661 APPLICANT REQUESTS: * In effect, reversal of the U.S. Army Human Resources Command (HRC) decision denying him combat-related special compensation (CRSC) for obstructive sleep apnea with limb restlessness, chronic left ankle strain, and psoriasis * Permission to appear before the Board, via video/telephone APPLICANT'S SUPPORTING DOCUMENT(S) CONSIDERED BY THE BOARD: * DD Form 149 (Application for Correction of Military Record) * Enclosure 1 – Page 4, 1996 Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Rating Decision * Enclosure 2 – Page 2, 1996 VA Rating Decision * Enclosure 3 – Page 1, 1996 VA Rating Decision * Enclosure 4 – CRS (Congressional Research Service) Report for Congress – VA: Benefits for Service-Connected Disabilities * Enclosure 5 – Pages 1 and 2, 2002 VA Rating Decision * Enclosure 6 – Applicant's July 2020 letter to HRC * Enclosure 7 – HRC's September 2020 response * Enclosure 8 – Applicant's January 2022 CRSC Reconsideration Request * Enclosure 9 – HRC's January 2022 response * Enclosure 10 – Page 4 of Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD) Industrial Survey Extract * Enclosure 11 – Extract, 1995 VA Rating Decision * Enclosure 12 – Extract, VA Hearing * Enclosure 13 – Obstructive Sleep Apnea diagnosis * Enclosure 14 – U.S. Army Physical Disability Agency (USAPDA), CRSC memorandum, undated * Enclosure 15 – Medical Record – Consultation Sheet * Enclosure 16 – HRC's March 2009 CRSC letter * Enclosure 17 – Section III (Final CRSC Criteria), DD Form 2860 (Application for CRSC) – combat-induced PTSD and obstructive sleep apnea * Enclosure 18 – Applicant's January 2009 letter to VA * Enclosure 19 – Applicant's March 2009 letter to HRC CRSC * Enclosure 20 – General Orders Number 2622, dated 16 June 1968 * Enclosure 21 – Letter from applicant's VA primary care manager * Enclosure 22 – Applicant's arguments pertaining to obstructive sleep apnea and PTSD, with attached PTSD Research Quarterly * Enclosure 23 – Section III (Final CRSC Criteria), DD Form 2860 (Application for CRSC) – chronic ankle strain, left ankle * Enclosure 24 – Vietnam Informational Summary * Enclosure 25 – Extract of Vietnam historical summary for 4th Military Police Company * Enclosure 26 – Applicant's March 2008 letter to VA * Enclosure 27 – VA Progress Notes * Enclosure 28 – Applicant's December 2008 letter to VA * Enclosure 29 – Section III (Final CRSC Criteria), DD Form 2860 (Application for CRSC) – skin psoriasis * Enclosure 30 – Applicant's June 2008 letter to HRC CRSC * Enclosure 31 – VA Form 21-4138 (Statement in Support of Claim) FACTS: 1. The applicant states, in effect, HRC has made three clear and unmistakable errors (CUE) and did so without proper authority and based on specious legal arguments. HRC claims it is unable to verify as combat-related three of the applicant's medical conditions: obstructive sleep apnea with limb restlessness, chronic left ankle strain, and psoriasis. The applicant argues all three conditions were incurred during the Vietnam War and resulted from his exposure to combat, and to Agent Orange while engaged in combat. a. Despite the applicant doing "everything possible to unambiguously notify and bring attention to both the VA and, of course, the CRSC (of) these cited issues," HRC has inappropriately disregarded or simply overlooked the evidence he has submitted. (1) The applicant contends his individual CRSC and VA medical records contain an "overpowering abundance of factually, illicit, and inaccurate errors, as well as a preponderance of uncontested, documented facts," all of which have been undisputed since 1994. (2) The applicant's records overtly certify that he was "engaged in actual direct combat with the enemy in 1968," and, as such, he must be given the benefit of the doubt. Further, the Board has the "duty to support and grant (his) application for this CRSC records correction, based upon the reliability of original unique documents that authenticate exactly where errors and/or omission occurred, while having been unquestionably made by the Army CRSC." To support his arguments, the applicant cites two provisions from Title 38 (Pensions, Bonuses, and Veterans' Relief), Code of Federal Regulations (CFR): (a) Section 3.310 (a) (Disabilities that are Proximately Due to, or Aggravated by, Service-Connected Disease or Injury – General), where it states, a "disability which is proximately due to or the result of a service-connected disease or injury shall be service connected. When service connection is thus established for a secondary condition, the secondary condition shall be considered a part of the original condition. (b) Section 3.304 (d) ( Direct Service Connection; Wartime and Peacetime – Combat, which states, "Satisfactory lay or other evidence that an injury or disease was incurred or aggravated in combat will be accepted as sufficient proof of service connection if the evidence is consistent with the circumstances, conditions or hardships of such service even though there is no official record of such incurrence or aggravation." (3) The VA has always maintained that there is a direct etiological relationship between obstructive sleep apnea and PTSD; that being said, VA initially categorized obstructive sleep apnea as "Peacetime-Incurred." They fixed that error in August 2022 when they issued the applicant's updated disability rating decision. (4) The applicant refers to a 24 February 2006 letter by Colonel (COL) , then Chief, CRSC Division, USAPDA (presumably meaning applicant's enclosure 14) and declares, "Presently the ARBA (Army Review Boards Agency), must hold the CRSC to such clearly worded and understandable, procedural, moral and ethical standards, as methodically outlined within his letter." b. The applicant offers more detailed arguments concerning each of his three medical conditions: (1) Obstructive Sleep Apnea. (a) The applicant's VA medical and claims records contain "indisputable and extensively documents conceded facts" that confirm a direct link between PTSD and obstructive sleep apnea * Point Number 1 – VA originally evaluated and diagnosed the applicant per "Direct Vietnam Combat Related (VE INC) Event" and the diagnosis was "PTSD with 'Sleep Disturbances'" * Point Number 2 – In or around 2007, the applicant received COL 's letter of instruction; based on that letter, the applicant requested a medical consult from a pulmonologist; the consult revealed it was "at least as likely as not" that sleep apnea aggravated his PTSD (b) The applicant argues, "When service connection is thus established for a secondary condition, the secondary condition shall be considered a part of the original condition." He then details VA's granting of service-connection, its inaccurate portrayal of his sleep apnea, and HRC's most recent refusal to consider his evidence. (2) Chronic Left Ankle Strain. As with obstructive sleep apnea, the applicant's VA medical and claims records contain "indisputable and extensively documents conceded facts" about his ankle strain. * Point Number 1 – The Army awarded the applicant the Silver Star in 1968 for his actions during Vietnam; before leaving for Vietnam, he underwent pre deployment combat training, and it was during this training that he injured his knees and ankles (i.e., "preparation and training for Armed Conflict") * Point Number 2 – While in Vietnam, the applicant participated in many "Direct Armed Combat Incidents," one of which involved a 5-hour battle, on 5 May 1968, and during this battle, the applicant injured his lower back, knees, and ankles (3) Psoriasis. The applicant's claim for psoriasis is also indisputable and well- documented. * Point Number 1 –the applicant based his CRSC claim on Agent Orange exposure; VA originally granted a 0 percent disability rating but later increased it to 30 percent due to a board decree * Point Number 2 – a dermatologist opined, "Original onset of psoriasis appears to be secondary to exposure to Agent Orange, Cleaning Solvents and malaria pills in Vietnam" c. The applicant concludes, "based upon the afore preponderance of well-founded often redundantly irrefutable governmental VA documents containing expert attestations of confirmations. It is petitioned that this Veteran have such errors, faults and or mistakes, immediately expunged and corrected, as per necessity and obligatory, thru curative actions by the ARBA, without any continued delays. Such is obviously in the interest of fairness and justice; not injustice." 2. The applicant provides 31 enclosures, consisting of extracts from past VA disability decisions, as well as VA medical documentation; correspondence between the applicant and HRC, pertaining to CRSC; historical summaries, describing events during the Vietnam War; and articles/reports addressing PTSD and VA benefits for service- connected disabilities. 3. A review of the applicant's service record reveals the following: a. On 5 December 1966, the Army of the United States inducted the applicant for a 2-year term of active duty service. Upon completion of initial entry training and the award of military occupational specialty 95B (Military Police (MP)), orders assigned him to an installation in the continental United States (CONUS); (the applicant's assignment information is unavailable for review). b. At some point prior to March 1968, the applicant received assignment instructions for Vietnam; on or about 21 March 1968, the applicant arrived in Vietnam, and orders further assigned him to a military police unit within the 4th Infantry Division. On 16 June 1968, Headquarters, 4th Infantry Division General Orders awarded the applicant the Silver Star for gallantry in action, on 5 May 1968. The orders described how the applicant, while acting as an MP escort for a convoy, responded to an enemy ambush by initially maintaining continuous and effective fire, then dismounting his vehicle and rendering first aid to the wounded, and finally moving from vehicle to vehicle to evacuate the wounded to a secure location for subsequent helicopter evacuation. c. On or about 22 November 1968, the applicant completed his tour in Vietnam, and orders reassigned him to Fort Lewis, WA for separation processing. On 23 November 1968, orders honorably released from active duty and transferred him to the U.S. Army Reserve for the balance of his military service obligation. His DD Form 214 (Armed Forces of the United States Report of Transfer or Discharge) shows he completed 1 year, 11 months, and 19 days of net active duty service, with 8 months and 2 days of foreign service. d. On 14 August 1973, the applicant enlisted into the Regular Army for 3 years; he served continuously, under extensions and reenlistments, until, on 31 July 1994, the Army honorably retired him, based on having completed sufficient service. His DD Form 214 (Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty) shows he completed 16 years, 1 month, and 3 days, with 6 years, 10 months, and 5 days of prior active duty service. e. On 21 June 2003, the applicant filed his first application for CRSC. On 15 June 2004, USAPDA advised the applicant, via letter, that it had approved the applicant's CRSC claim in part: (1) USAPDA approval, showing a combined disability rating of 80 percent, for: * PTSD – 50 percent * Diabetes Mellitus – 20 percent * Tinnitus – 10 percent * Paralysis of a Nerve (Bilateral Left Leg) – 10 percent * Paralysis of a Nerve (Bilateral Right Leg) – 10 percent * Paralysis of a Nerve (Bilateral Left Arm) – 10 percent * Paralysis of a Nerve (Bilateral Right Arm) – 10 percent * Impaired Hearing –20 percent (2) USAPDA did not find the following as combat-related: * Sleep Apnea Syndrome * Psoriasis * Limited Motion of Ankle * Hypertension f. On an unknown date before September 2004, the applicant requested reconsideration of his earlier CRSC claim. On 27 September 2004, USAPDA announced it had approved the reconsideration request by increasing the disability rating for his bilateral leg condition from 10 to 20 percent, and the letter showed a combined disability rating of 90 percent. g. In or around February 2008, and again in June 2008, the applicant filed reconsideration requests, asking HRC to grant CRSC benefits for sleep apnea, psoriasis, and hypertension. On 13 August 2008, and again, on 16 October 2008, HRC denied the applicant's requests, stating it could not to find any additional evidence that would allowed them to award CRSC for those conditions. h. In 12 March 2009, applicant sent in another reconsideration request for approval of sleep apnea and hypertension; on 24 March 2009, HRC advised the applicant it was unable to adjust their earlier CRSC decision. i. On 28 July 2020, the applicant submitted another reconsideration request, arguing he was sending new medical evidence that had been previously overlooked. On 5 September 2020, HRC responded that it was unable to award CRSC for obstructive sleep apnea with limb restlessness, psoriasis, and left ankle sprain. (1) HRC added, "Sleep Apnea and Psoriasis are not considered combat related conditions and are currently not recognized as being caused by combat environments or events. You report that your Sleep Apnea is linked to your Hypertension but the VA has not linked the conditions; therefore, we are again unable to authorize compensation. Please refer to your VA disability code sheet, dated November 2010; secondary disabilities are listed with the word 'secondary.' Note your Sleep Apnea is not listed as secondary." (2) "Your claim has previously been processed at the initial, reconsideration, and appeal levels. During each review, our staff has made every effort to consistently and fairly review all available documentation and accurately adhere to this program's standards. We now consider this determination final." HRC recommended the applicant apply to the Army Board for Correction of Military Records (ABCMR) for relief. j. On 14 January 2022, the applicant sent HRC a reconsideration request, based on "newly FOIA available material evidence of fact; VA (CUE (clear and unmistakable error)) errors." On 19 January 2022, HRC acknowledged receipt of the applicant's request and noted that, on 5 September 2020, it had already sent him its final determination letter. HRC advised the applicant his only recourse was to file an ABCMR application. 4. On 17 January 2023, HRC provided an advisory opinion. HRC reviewed the applicant's previous CRSC claims submissions and noted it was unable to verify that his obstructive sleep apnea, psoriasis, and chronic left ankle sprain were the result of a combat-related event. a. Regarding the applicant's psoriasis, HRC stated the condition did not meet CRSC criteria; at present, VA only showed "Chloracne" as an Agent Orange presumptive skin condition. b. The applicant's obstructive sleep apnea did not qualify for CRSC because both the Department of Defense and the VA had determined this condition was not caused by combat related events or environments. Further, VA had not established a secondary link to PTSD in the applicant's rating decisions, and his submitted documentation did not show a definite causal link between the condition and a combat related event. c. As to the applicant's chronic left ankle sprain, the applicant contended he had incurred this condition during basic combat training, where he participated in grenade and live fire weapons practice; bayonet training; hand-to-hand combat training; and combat confidence/obstacle courses. In order for HRC to award CRSC for this condition, the applicant needed to provide "military medical documentation that shows how each condition is combat related as defined by CRSC program guidance. Medical documentation must be from the time the injury occurred and must clearly show a combat related event." 5. On 19 January 2023, ARBA provided the applicant a copy of HRC's advisory opinion to allow him the opportunity to submit a statement and/or additional evidence on his own behalf. On 2 February 2023, the applicant responded with the following: a. The applicant asked the Board to substantially reject the HRC's "historical, nonsensical recommendations; which are without factual, evidentiary support or merit based; thus imposing deception upon and constructed to present document for purpose of decoy for the Board's analysis of the facts and circumstances of this case." The applicant continued, arguing that his application held nothing but true facts that have been available since 1994. b. The applicant stated it must be brought to the Board's attention that, "within the CRSC rejoinder, such has actually, unconcealed many miss representation's, to the Veteran and the Board, which was and is blatantly void, of any and all VA and other meaningful records, documents, letters of historical facts from the Veterans true overall records (bringing attention and provided Medical and other records to the CRSC underperformances). Such are now vividly glaring and decisively missing." c. "Henceforth, it is petitioned that ABCMR recognize and decidedly consider that the CRSC has inadequately and wrongfully adjudged/reconsidered these holistic true facts of proceedings. While deciding this appeal for Obstructive Sleep Apnea, Psoriasis, and Left Ankle Sprain, it must also be pointed out that numerous analyst(s) appears to have demonstrated questionable, noticeable, and alternative or extrinsic determinations, as to what should have been acceptable, as per the Laws, Standards, and Conditions; without actually any validation for many, if not all of the Truths and Factual Key Points of Evidence from the Military, VA Records and Files. Such included but not limited to critical Military and or VA medical examinations and other legal unimpeachable documents of facts. Such official papers would and do include without being limited to any and all associated conditions, concealed or hidden by other associated, conjoined, linking of conditions, such as but not limited to PTSD, OSA (obstructive sleep apnea), Hypertension, Psoriasis and or other Direct Combat Injuries, such as Ankle." d. The applicant requests the Board "contemplate the original CRSC charter" while bearing in mind COL 's letter (presumably referring to enclosure 14 of his current application). Additionally, the applicant asserts the CRSC analysts drew a number of "nonsensical, whimsical conclusions," using no legal basis. All of their conclusions were not established upon applicable laws, standards or medical records and research. e. In addressing the evidence for each of his conditions, the applicant goes on to cite COL 's letter and restate arguments already presented for the Board's consideration. He maintains his military and VA records contain more than sufficient proof to validate his CRSC claims. He additionally cites 38 CFR to support his arguments. 6. Army Regulation (AR) 15-185 (ABCMR), currently in effect, states an applicant is not entitled to a hearing before the Board; however, the request for a hearing may be authorized by a panel of the Board or by the Director of ABCMR. 7. The VA and the Army, under the Department of Defense, operate under separate provisions of Federal law; as such, each will make independent determinations based upon their applicable provisions of Federal law and their own internal regulations. The decisions made by one organization are not binding on the other. In determining the eligibility of benefits, each applies different terms and standards: a. The VA uses service-connection for determining the eligibility for benefits, which it defines as : the finding that a particular injury or medical condition, later resulting in disability, is determined to have been incurred coincident to or aggravated by service in the Armed Forces. When, after careful consideration of all procurable and assembled data, a reasonable doubt arises as to the degree of disability, such doubt will be resolved in favor of the claimant; (the "benefit of the doubt" rule applies only to VA determinations). b. By contrast, the Army determines whether an injury/medical condition is combat- related; being combat-related means the medical conditions or injuries were incurred: * as a direct result of an armed conflict * while engaged in hazardous service, such as aerial flight, parachute duty, demolition duty, or diving duty * because of an instrumentality of war, i.e., tanks, armored personnel carriers, and other armored vehicles designed primarily for military service; military air and water craft; weapons, ammunition, and explosive devices * during the performance of duty under conditions simulating war, due to military training exercises, war games, leader reaction courses, and/or obstacle courses 8. 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/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 requesting they reverse the United States Army Human Resources Command’s (USAHRC) determinations that his obstructive sleep apnea, chronic left ankle sprain, and psoriasis of the skin are not combat related. c. The Record of Proceedings details the applicant’s military service and the circumstances of the case. d. The United States Army Human Resources Command’s 17 January 2023 advisory opinion for this case goes into detail explaining their denials of his requests for CRSC for these three conditions and does not need to be repeated here. This advisor agrees with their findings and conclusion that these three conditions do not meet the evidentiary requirements as laid out in Department of Defense Financial Management Regulation 7000.14-R Volume 7B Chapter 63 “Combat-Related Special Compensation (CRSC)” and are not combat related as defined in 10 U.S.C. § 1413a “Combat-related special compensation.” e. CRSC as described on the United States Army Human Resources Command website: “Combat-Related Special Compensation (CRSC) is a form of concurrent receipt which is paid monthly. It restores military retired pay that is offset when a Military Retiree accepts compensation from the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) for a disability or condition that can be attributed to a combat-related event as defined by the Department of Defense (DoD) program guidance. This allows eligible Retirees to concurrently receive an amount equal to or less than their length of service retirement pay and their VA disability compensation, if the injury is combat-related.” f. The applicant contends that because these conditions were incurred while serving in Vietnam and were subsequently service connected by the Veterans Benefits Administration (VBA), that they are therefore combat related. However, these are not equivalent. g. Combat-related disability for CRSC is defined in 10 U.S.C. § 1413a(e) as a disability that is "attributable to an injury for which the member was awarded the Purple Heart" or was incurred "as a direct result of armed conflict," ''through an instrumentality of war," "while engaged in hazardous service," or "in the performance of duty under conditions simulating war." h. Paragraph 630601A of Department of Defense Financial Management Regulation 7000.14-R, Volume 78, Chapter 63 notes the requirement of a “definite causal relationship” of the medical condition and activity meeting the standards in 10 U.S.C. § 1413a(e) : “To support a combat-related determination it is not sufficient to only state the fact that a member incurred the disability during a period of war, or in an area of armed conflict or while participating in combat operations. There must be a definite causal relationship between the armed conflict and the resulting liability.” i. Paragraph 631001A of Department of Defense Financial Management Regulation 7000.14-R Volume 7B Chapter 63 defines the evidence required for determining combat related for the purposes of awarding CRSC: “Determinations of whether a disability is combat-related will be based on the preponderance of available documentary information where quality of information is more important than quantity. All relevant documentary information is to be weighed in relation to known facts and circumstances, and determinations will be made on the basis of credible, objective documentary information in the records as distinguished from personal opinion, speculation, or conjecture.” j. The applicant’s personnel statement and case file were reviewed and no medical documentation meeting the above requirements was found in the supporting documentation submitted with the application. k. A note in paragraph 630502 of DoD FMR 7000.14-R Volume 7B Chapter 63 CRSC confirms this requirement, stating in part: “An uncorroborated statement in a record that a disability is combat-related will not, by itself, be considered determinative for purposes of meeting the combat- related standards for CRSC prescribed herein. CRSC determinations must be made based on the program criteria.” l. That these conditions were incurred in the line of duty during his service to his country is unquestioned. However, it is the opinion of the ARBA medical advisor there is insufficient probative evidence upon which to reverse the previous non-combat related determinations of the United States Army Human Resources Command for the applicant’s obstructive sleep apnea, chronic left ankle sprain, and psoriasis of the skin. 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, Human Resources Command (HRC) CRSC branch and the medical review the Board concurred with the advising official finding insufficient probative evidence upon which to reverse the previous non-combat related determinations of the United States Army Human Resources Command for the applicant’s obstructive sleep apnea, chronic left ankle sprain, and psoriasis of the skin. The Board noted, the HRC opine found insufficient evidence to support that a combat related event in relation to the applicant’s obstructive sleep apnea and psoriasis. Further, psoriasis based on CRSC criteria is not considered an agent orange presumptive condition. 2. The Board determined, based on the evidence and HRC opine, the applicant’s sleep apnea is considered secondary to his PTSD and does meet the criteria for CRSC consideration. The Board agreed, the burden of proof rest on the applicant, however he did not provide any supporting documentation and his service record has insufficient evidence to support the applicant’s CRSC contentions regarding his left ankle condition was a combat related event. Based on the preponderance of evidence the Board determined there was insufficient evidence for reversal of the U.S. Army Human Resources Command decision to deny him combat related special compensation (CRSC) for his obstructive sleep apnea with limb restlessness, chronic left ankle strain, and psoriasis retroactive entitlement to CRSC to the date of his original claim. 3. The applicant’s request for a personal appearance hearing 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 hearing is not necessary to serve the interest of equity and justice in this case. 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. Title 10 (Armed Forces), United States Code: a. Section 1413a (CRSC) provides for the payment of money a military retiree would otherwise be receiving from VA for combat-related disabilities, were it not for statutory prohibitions. The military department, not VA, pays the retiree and the money is tax-free. (1) Eligibility requirements: * The retiree must have completed 20 years of active duty service, or 20 years of qualifying service for a non-regular retirement * VA has awarded the retiree a disability rating of at least 10 percent * The retiree has had his military retired pay reduced by the amount of VA's disability compensation (2) Combat-related disability is defined as medical conditions incurred: * as a direct result of an armed conflict * while engaged in hazardous service, such as aerial flight, parachute duty, demolition duty, or diving duty * because of an instrumentality of war, i.e., tanks, armored personnel carriers, and other armored vehicles designed primarily for military service; military air and water craft; weapons, ammunition, and explosive devices * during the performance of duty under conditions simulating war, due to military training exercises, war games, leader reaction courses, and/or obstacle courses b. Section 1556 (Ex Parte Communications Prohibited) provides the Secretary of the Army shall ensure that an applicant seeking corrective action by ARBA is provided a copy of all correspondence and communications, including summaries of verbal communications, with any agencies or persons external to agency or board, or a member of the staff of the agency or Board, that directly pertains to or has material effect on the applicant's case, except as authorized by statute. 2. AR 15-185, currently in effect, states an applicant is not entitled to a hearing before the Board; however, the request for a hearing may be authorized by a panel of the Board or by the Director of ABCMR. //NOTHING FOLLOWS// ABCMR Record of Proceedings (cont) AR20220011661 1 ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 1