IN THE CASE OF: BOARD DATE: 26 July 2023 DOCKET NUMBER: AR20220011716 APPLICANT REQUESTS: correction of his DA Form 199 (Informal Physical Evaluation Board (PEB) Proceedings) to show his unfitting condition of degenerative arthritis of the lumbar spine with right lower extremity radiculopathy resulted from a combat-related injury. APPLICANT'S SUPPORTING DOCUMENT(S) CONSIDERED BY THE BOARD: * DD Form 149 (Application for Correction of Military Record) * DD Form 689 (Individual Sick Slip), dated 14 November 2004 * DD Form 214 (Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty) for the period 18 February 2003 – 1 February 2005 * DD Form 214 for the period 1 December 2014 – 31 January 2017 * DA Form 2173 (Statement of Medical Examination and Duty Status) * Integrated Disability Evaluation System (IDES) Narrative Summary (NARSUM) * DA Form 3947 (Medical Evaluation Board (MEB) Proceedings) * DA Form 199 and related documents * retirement orders * Applicant's Combat-Related Special Compensation (CRSC) case history * Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) rating decision * medical records * miscellaneous military personnel records FACTS: 1. The applicant states: a. His MEB, PEB, and medical separation and retirement took 3.5 years and completed only after an inspector general investigation, all the while erroneously upholding his promotion to lieutenant colonel. Prior to the final completion of the PEB portion, he was instructed by his State Retirement Officer to ensure that all applicable documents (DA Form 199 and retirement order) indicated that the “catalyst” injury (degenerative arthritis of the lumbar spine et al) was reflected as combat-related and incurred in the line of duty (LOD) to ensure later CRSC eligibility. b. Before signing final PEB, he requested his PEB Liaison Officer (PEBLO) verify that in fact his injury was reflected as incurred in combat and in LOD on both the DA Form 199 and retirement orders. The PEBLO assured him that in fact the injury was reflected in that manner which is reflected within attached documents. At his assurance, he forfeited all further PEB appeals, counsel, and requests for changes to the DA Form 199 and simply signed it. The PEBLO is the expert, so he assumed all was “as exactly as it should be.” What he did not know was that he was not correct nor completely forthright. He was unaware of the upcoming longer-term ramifications and challenges related to fighting for CRSC due to the misguidance. c. He applied for CRSC (1st submission) and received the determination from the CRSC board on or around 14 June 2021. To his shock, it stated that the injury responsible for his medical retirement was determined to be “not combat related”, and therefore not eligible for CRSC. This directly countered his PEBLO, his retirement orders, LOD, MEB, medical documentation, and from what he was told by his PEBLO per his DA Form 199. He resubmitted to CRSC a second time. He assumed an easy fix or misunderstanding. Simply add additional medical documentation and point out that his DA Form 199 and PEBLO states: To satisfy the determination required by Section 3 of Appendix 5 to Enclosure 3 of DoDI 1332.18 (as implemented by Section 020303 B of DoD 7000.14-5, VOL 7A), the Soldier's disability retirement is due to a disability incurred in the LOD in a combat zone or as the result of performing combat related operations. This should resolve the discrepancy. It did not. The decision came back denied once again as: 1) still not combat related per his DA Form 199, and 2) because the DD Form 689 did not state reason for injury. How can it not be combat related? It says it right there in Section VI (of DA form 199)– just as his PEBLO stated months prior. d. In his frustration, he reached out to the CRSC board once again. They in turn instructed him to contact his PEBLO and the Integrated Disability Evaluation System (IDES). He did. This time, he was informed by his PEBLO that although it states combat related as he previously indicated, the codes V1 and V3 are not always used and therefore for the purposes of CRSC, the DA Form 199 would not support CRSC for the back condition. This was not what he was informed of previously, nor prior to his signing away his ability to appeal or seek further clarification. He was livid. The story had now changed. CRSC cannot change the DA Form 199 and the PEBLO/IDES was now pointing him to the Army Review Boars Agency (ARBA) because the PEB was complete. e. His PEBLO instructed him to provide ARBA with additional documentation and substantiation, which coincidentally, he would have provided to the PEB if he knew that it was necessary prior to PEB finalization. The PEB did not appear to have read all related medical documents as dates were incorrectly reflected on the DA Form 199 and elsewhere, which he believes may have affected what was indicted on the DA Form 199 more accurately as well. f. How he finally came to ARBA: In December 2021, He was awarded VA compensation for tinnitus. He understood that he was to inform the CRSC board of any changes to his VA benefits or conditions. He did just that by submitting it for CRSC consideration. Later he received a third CRSC determination letter stating tinnitus granted, and back injury denied? He had not submitted anything for the back condition, as he was only submitting for tinnitus. Unknowingly, he had now just expended all three CRSC submission opportunities. As much as he tried to explain to the CRSC board that it was not his intent, the answer was: “that is not how we operate, and it is all or nothing” which seemed counter to their guidance. g. The CRSC project specialist then informed him that he would now have to go to ARBA for relief or any changes as necessary. Injury occurred in May 2004 enroute to Fallujah, Iraq - as indicated. As he was a detachment commander at the time, he sought to downplay any effects it may have and informally sought conservative treatment for what he thought was a simple back spasm and sore legs and feet do to the height of the jump and weight of his load and equipment. It is detailed in his LOD, attached documents, his statements, and even on the DA Form 199. He was in a combat zone when he exited the vehicle at the rear while they were taking fire. The fact that his supporting DD Form 689 sick call slip does not say how the injury occurred is because it was the only evidence he has of the ongoing and enduring conservative treatment he sought throughout the remainder of the deployment – which is dated November 2004. h. ALL other deployment medical documentation was supposed to have been saved to PIV (personal identity verification) cards by the 30th HSB prior to redeployment – a new and untested process. That process failed and not discovered until reaching the demobilization station. He now have no access to any additional or like medical documentation. He has one original DD Form 689 which certainly indicates a back injury in a combat zone. This has all been explained and reexplained. Additionally, he has continued treatment post-deployment from 2005 until the injury manifested itself to the point of limb paralysis in 2009, and up to and including today. That is indicated in the continuity of care document and VA nexus letter per his primary care physician. 2. Following enlisted service in the Army National Guard (ARNG), the applicant was appointed in the ARNG effective 25 July 1998. He served in Iraq from 15 March to 29 December 2004. 3. A DA Form 2173 shows that on 31 May 2004, the sustained an injury while deployed to Iraq causing low back pain and radiculopathy, lumbar region. The injury occurred after he jumped out of a light medium tactical vehicle in full gear plus assault pack. The form also shows the injury was considered to have been incurred in LOD. 4. A DD Form 689, dated 14 November 2004, shows the applicant was examined while deployed to Iraq due to muscle spasm (back). The form also shows the injury was incurred in LOD. 5. On 5 February 2021, an informal PEB found the applicant unfit for further military service based on degenerative arthritis of the lumbar spine with right lower extremity radiculopathy (VA diagnosis: intervertebral disc syndrome of the lumbar spine and lumbar radiculopathy). The PEB indicated the following: Per the Army National Guard Soldier’s NARSUM and line of duty determination, the Soldier reports onset for this condition in May 2004 after dismounting a Light Medium Tactical Vehicle (LMTV) in full gear and upon landing he felt pain to his lower back while deployed to Iraq (2004). The condition was intermittent, however, began worsening with lower back pain radiating down his right leg to include numbness and right foot tingling from no mechanism of injury or trauma. 6. The PEB recommended a 40% disability rating and the applicant's permanent disability retirement. The DA Form 199 contains the following statement in: a. Section V: (1) The disability disposition is not based on disease or injury incurred in LOD in combat with an enemy of the United States and as a direct result of armed conflict or caused by an instrumentality of war and incurred in LOD during a period of war (Title 5, U.S. Code, sections 8332, 3502, and 6303). (This determination is made for all compensable cases but pertains to potential benefits for disability retirees employed under Federal Civil Service.) (2) The disability did not result from a combat-related injury under the provisions of 26 USC 104 or 10 USC 10216. b. Section VI: To satisfy the determination required by Section 3 of Appendix 5 to Enclosure 3 of DoDI 1332.18 (as implemented by Section 020303 B of DoD 7000.14-5, VOL 7A), the Soldier's disability retirement is due to a disability incurred in LOD in a combat zone or as the result of performing combat related operations. 7. Orders Number 055-16, issued by the U.S. Army Physical Disability Agency on 24 February 2021, directed the applicant's retirement due to physical disability effective 31 March 2021. The orders contain the following entries: a. Disability is based on injury or disease received in LOD as a direct result of armed conflict or caused by an instrumentality of war and incurred in the LOD during a war period as defined by law: NO b. Disability resulted from a combat related injury as defined in Title 26, U.S. Code, section 104: NO c. Disability incurred in the LOD in a combat zone or result of performing combat related operations: YES. 8. The applicant's CRSC record shows he was awarded CRSC for the following conditions: * post-traumatic stress disorder * gastrointestinal disorder, functional * tinnitus * left ear hearing loss His request for CRSC for the following conditions was disapproved because the medical evidence does not show a combat-related event caused the condition(s): * lumbar spine degenerative disc disease, spinal stenosis, spondylolisthesis, intervertebral disc syndrome, and arthritis * radiculopathy, right lower extremity (sciatic nerve) * radiculopathy, right lower extremity (femoral nerve) * radiculopathy, left lower extremity (femoral nerve) 9. The applicant's VA rating decision shows he was granted service-connected disability compensation for, among other conditions: * lumbar spine degenerative disc disease, spinal stenosis, spondylolisthesis, intervertebral disc syndrome, and arthritis * radiculopathy, right lower extremity (sciatic nerve) * radiculopathy, right and left lower extremities (femoral nerve) 10. 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 requesting reversal of the United States Army Physical Disability Agency’s (USAPDA) and the United States Army Human Resources Command’s (USAHRC) administrative determinations that neither of his military disabilities - Degenerative arthritis of the lumbar spine with lower extremity radiculopathy - were related to combat as defined by law. He states: “Code change / correction to (PEB) DA 199 [Informal Physical Evaluation Board (PEB) Proceedings] for SM [Applicant] (LTC retired); specifically, Section 3 to reflect V1/V3 [V1 Combat Related = Incurred in the line of duty as a direct result of armed conflict with a direct causal relationship; V3 Combat Related = Incurred performing extra hazardous service (special dangers) even if not directly engaged in combat] as YES for an injury as combat related - per [Mr.] D.S., Program Specialist CRSC [Combat Related Special Compensation], FT. Knox, KY. This change is required to qualify my PEB catalyst injury: degenerative arthritis of the lumbar spine, with right lower extremity radiculopathy (diagnosis: Intervertebral disc syndrome of the lumbar spine and lumbar radiculopathy currently rated by VA at 40%) for CRSC. In short: DA 199 changed to qualify specified injury for CRSC eligibility and subsequent CRSC board notification of change. c. The Record of Proceedings details the applicant’s military service and the circumstances of the case. Orders published 24 February 2021 by the United States Army Physical Disability Agency show he was permanently retired for physical disability with a 40% military disability rating effective 31 March 2021 under provisions provided in chapter 4 of AR 635–40, Physical Evaluation for Retention, Retirement, or Separation (17 January 2017). It shows none of his disabilities had been determined combat related. d. 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.” e. The combat related evidentiary requirements used in the disability process are different from those for awarding CRSC, and these determinations come under different sections of US Code. While the United States Army Physical Disability Agency (USAPDA) determinations are made under 26 USC 104 or 10 USC 10216, combat related determinations for the purpose of CRSC are made under the provisions of 10 USC 1413a and Department of Defense Financial Management Regulation 7000.14R, Volume 78, Chapter 63. Thus, a combat related determination made by the USAPDA does not automatically qualify a disability for CRSC the disability. Due to the difference in program guidance, CRSC must independently verify a condition is combat related for the purpose of entitlement to CRSC. f. In addition, the evidentiary requirements for CRSC are higher / more rigorous. CRSC combat related requirements for determining a condition combat related are defined in Chapter 63, Volume 7B of DoD 7000.14R, Financial Management Regulation, is titled “Combat-Related Special Compensation (CSRC)”. Those for the Disability Evaluation System are defined in Department of Defense Instruction 1332.18, SUBJECT: Disability Evaluation System (DES) (5 August 2014). g. Paragraph 631001A of Department of Defense Financial Management Regulation 7000.14-R Volume 7B Chapter 63 “Combat-Related Special Compensation (CRSC)” defines the basis 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.” h. For the purpose of granting CRSC, combat related is defined in paragraphs 630601, 630602, 630603, and 630604 respectively of Department of Defense Financial Management Regulation 7000.14-R, Volume 78, Chapter 63: “630601. Direct Result of Armed Conflict The disability is a disease or injury incurred in the line of duty as a direct result of armed conflict. 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, 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 disability. Armed conflict includes a war, expedition, occupation of an area or territory, battle, skirmish, raid, invasion, rebellion, insurrection, guerilla action, riot, or any other action in which Service members are engaged with a hostile or belligerent nation, faction, force, or with terrorists. Armed conflict may also include incidents involving a member while interned as a prisoner of war, while detained against his or her will in the custody of a hostile or belligerent force, or while escaping or attempting to escape from such confinement, prisoner of war, or detained status. 630602. While Engaged in Hazardous Service Hazardous service is service that includes, but is not limited to, aerial flight, parachute duty, demolition duty, experimental stress duty, and diving duty. A finding that a disability is the result of hazardous service requires that the injury or disease be the direct result of actions taken in the performance of such service. Travel to and from such service, or actions incidental to a normal duty status not considered hazardous, are not included.” 630603. In the Performance of Duty Under Conditions Simulating War In general, performance of duty under conditions simulating war covers disabilities resulting from military training, such as war games, practice alerts, tactical exercises, airborne operations, leadership reaction courses, grenade and live fire weapon practice, bayonet training, hand-to-hand combat training, repelling, and negotiation of combat confidence and obstacle courses. It does not include physical training activities such as calisthenics, jogging, formation running, or supervised sport activities.” 630604. Instrumentality of War There must be a direct causal relationship between the instrumentality of war and the disability. It is not required that a member’s disability be incurred during an actual period of war. The disability must be incurred incident to a hazard or risk of the service. An instrumentality of war is a vehicle, vessel, or device designed primarily for Military Service and intended for use in such Service at the time of the occurrence or injury. It may also include such instrumentality not designed primarily for Military Service if use of or occurrence involving such instrumentality subjects the individual to a hazard peculiar to Military Service. Such use or occurrence differs from the use or occurrence under similar circumstances in civilian pursuits. A determination that a disability is the result of an instrumentality of war may be made if the disability was incurred in any period of service as a result of such diverse causes as wounds caused by a military weapon, accidents involving a military combat vehicle, injury or sickness caused by fumes, gases, or explosion of military ordnance, vehicles, or materiel.” i. The applicant’s DA Form 199 dated 5 February 2021 shows the PEB determined his “Degenerative arthritis of the lumbar spine, with lower extremity radiculopathy” was unfitting for continued military service. The PEB made the administrative determination that neither condition was combat related: They found no evidence that one of these disabilities was the direct result of armed combat; was related to the use of combat devices (instrumentalities of war); the result of combat training; incurred while performing extra hazardous service though not engaged in combat; incurred while performing activities or training in preparation for armed conflict in conditions simulating war; or that he was a member of the military on or before 24 September 1975. j. The onset of his unfitting disability as noted in the rationale for his disabilities on his DA 199: Per the Army National Guard Soldier’s NARSUM [medical evaluation board narrative summary] and line of duty determination, the Soldier reports onset for this condition in May 2005 after dismounting a Light Medium Tactical Vehicle (LMTV) in full gear and upon landing he felt pain to his lower back while deployed to Iraq (2004) The condition was intermittent, however, began worsening with lower back pain radiating down his right leg to include numbness and right foot tingling from no mechanism of injury or trauma.” k. His Statement of Medical Examination and Duty Status (DA form 2173; commonly referred to a Line of Duty Determination or simply LOD) confirms their finding: “Soldier reports he first showed symptoms of back pain when dismounting an LMTV in Fallujah, Iraq when he jumped out of the back. He did not seek care until he returned from deployment and pain persisted.” l. The applicant may believe his injury should be found combat related because his injury was incurred while jumping from a military vehicle wearing full kit. However, just because a Soldier was injured while in, on, around, or working on/with an instrumentality of war (the LMTV) doesn’t automatically make it a disability caused by an instrumentality of war. The disability must be because the use of the military equipment or the circumstances surrounding the injury is uniquely military, was incurred incident to a hazard or risk of the service, and different from the use or occurrences in similar circumstances in civilian pursuits. The act of exiting a vehicle in full kit is not uniquely miliary as many civilian pursuits require exiting a vehicle while heavily equipped. m. From his 8 January 2021 medical evaluation board narrative summary: Onset: LTC [Applicant} is a US Army National Guard Soldier show presented to the Saint Catherine Medical Center in May 2009 while on active-duty status with a complaint of worsening lower back pain radiating down his right leg withy numbness and tingling in the right for. There was no mechanism of injury or trauma. Soldier was diagnosed with back pain and sciatica. n. In his 16 December 2020 IDES Back (Thoracolumbar Spine) Conditions Disability Benefits Questionnaire (aka “VA C&P”) the applicant gave the onset of his back pain as: “In 2004 while exciting the military's while in a vehicle LMTV under fire with a drop of 6' carrying over 100lbs of equipment. I had muscle spasms and buttocks pain that remained intermittent for 5 years until disc failure.” o. Paragraph 630601A of Department of Defense Financial Management Regulation 7000.14-R, Volume 78, Chapter 63: “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.” p. The applicant is not in receipt of a Purple Heart, Combat Action Badge, and no corroborating documentation was found. A note in paragraph 630502 of DoD FMR 7000.14-R Volume 7B Chapter 63 CRSC notes the requirement for documentation, 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.” q. 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 either the United States Army Physical Disability Agency’s or the United States Army Human Resources Command. 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 either the United States Army Physical Disability Agency’s or the United States Army Human Resources Command. Furthermore, the Board determined after careful review that jumping from a military vehicle while wearing a full kit while in, on, around, or working on/with an instrumentality of war (the LMTV) doesn’t automatically make it a disability caused by an instrumentality of war. 2. The Board found no evidence that any one of his disabilities was the direct result of armed combat; was related to the use of combat devices (instrumentalities of war); the result of combat training; incurred while performing extra hazardous service though not engaged in combat; incurred while performing activities or training in preparation for armed conflict in conditions simulating war. Based on regulatory guidance, the Board agreed that a reversal on the previous non-combat related determinations for his disabilities is not warranted. Therefore, relief was denied. 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. Army Regulation 635-40 establishes the Army DES and sets forth policies, responsibilities, and procedures that apply in determining whether a Soldier is unfit because of physical disability to reasonably perform the duties of his office, grade, rank, or rating. It states PEBs determine fitness for purposes of Soldiers retention, separation, or retirement for disability. The PEB also makes certain administrative determinations that may have benefit implications under other provisions of law. The regulation states in: a. Paragraph 5-24 (Determination for Purposes of Federal Civil Service Employment) the physical disability evaluation will include a decision and supporting documentation regarding whether the injury or disease that makes the Soldier unfit or that contributes to unfitness was incurred in combat with an enemy of the United States, was the result of armed conflict, or was caused by an instrumentality of war during a period of war. These determinations impact the eligibility of certain military retirees for certain benefits when employed under the Federal Civil Service System. (1) The determinations will be recorded on the record of proceedings of the Soldier’s adjudication. (2) Armed Conflict: The fact that a Soldier may have incurred a medical impairment during a period of war, in an area of armed conflict, or while participating in combat operations, is not sufficient to support a finding that the disability resulted from armed conflict. There must be a definite causal relationship between the armed conflict and the resulting unfitting disability. b. Paragraph 5-25 (Determination for Federal Tax Benefits) physical disability evaluation will include a determination and supporting documentation on whether the Soldiers disability compensation is excluded from Federal gross income under the provisions of Title 26, U.S. Code, section 104. The entitlement to this exclusion is based on the Soldier having a certain status on 24 September 1975 or being retired or separated for a disability determined to be combat related as set forth in this paragraph. The determination will be recorded on the record of proceedings of the Soldier’s adjudication. c. Combat related: This standard covers those injuries and diseases attributable to the special dangers associated with armed conflict or the preparation or training for armed conflict. A physical disability will be considered combat-related if it causes the Soldier to be unfit or contributes to unfitness and was incurred under any of the following circumstances: (1) As a direct result of armed conflict. (2) While engaged in hazardous service. Such service includes, but is not limited to, aerial flight duty, parachute duty, demolition duty, experimental stress duty, and diving duty. (3) Caused by an instrumentality of war. Occurrence during a period of war is not required. A favorable determination is made if the disability was incurred during any period of service as a result of such diverse causes as wounds caused by a military weapon, accidents involving a military combat vehicle, injury, or sickness caused by fumes, gases, or explosion of military ordnance, vehicles, or material. However, there must be a direct causal relationship between the instrumentality of war and the disability. For example, if a Soldier is on a field exercise and is engaged in a sporting activity and falls and strikes an armored vehicle, the injury will not be considered to result from the instrumentality of war (the armored vehicle), because it was the sporting activity that was the cause of the injury, not the vehicle. On the other hand, if the individual was engaged in the same sporting activity and the armored vehicle struck the Soldier, the injury would be considered the result of an instrumentality of war (the armored vehicle). 2. Title 26, U.S. Code, section 104, states that for the purpose of this subsection, the term "combat-related injury" means personal injury or sickness which is incurred as a direct result of armed conflict, while engaged in extra hazardous service, or under conditions simulating war; or which is caused by an instrumentality of war. 3. CRSC, established by Title 10, United States Code, section 1413a, provides for the payment of the amount of money a military retiree would receive from the VA for combat-related disabilities if it were not for the statutory prohibition for a military retiree to receive a VA disability pension. Payment is made by the military department, not the VA, and is tax free. Eligible members are those retirees who have 20 years of service for retired pay computation (or 20 years of service creditable for Reserve retirement at age 60) and retirees with fewer than 20 years of service who retired for physical disability and who have disabilities that are the direct result of armed conflict, especially hazardous military duty, training exercises that simulate war, or cause by an instrumentality of war. 4. Section 1556 of Title 10, United States Code, requires the Secretary of the Army to ensure that an applicant seeking corrective action by 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 ABCMR applicants (and/or their counsel) prior to adjudication. //NOTHING FOLLOWS// ABCMR Record of Proceedings (cont) AR20220011716 1 ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 1