IN THE CASE OF: BOARD DATE: 14 July 2022 DOCKET NUMBER: AR20220000793 APPLICANT REQUESTS: a physical disability retirement in lieu of his disability discharge and a personal appearance before the Board. APPLICANT'S SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS CONSIDERED BY THE BOARD: * DD Form 149 (Application for Correction of Military Record) * Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Decision letter, 5 September 1991 * Orders T-35-2 * Army Achievement Medal Certificate * Bronze Star Medal Certificate with Citation * Army Commendation Medal Certificate with Citation * DD Form 214 (Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty), effective 22 April 1991 * DD Form 214 (Armed Forces of the United States Report of Transfer or Discharge), effective 13 August 1969 * VA Decision letter (pages 4 and 6 of 6 pages), 30 May 2018 * DA Form 3349 (Physical Profile), effective 16 October 1990 * DA Form 3349 (Physical Profile), effective 17 July 1990 * DA Form 3349 (Physical Profile), effective 4 April 1990 * DA Form 3349 (Medical Condition - Physical Profile Record), effective 1 August 1978 * DA Form 3349 (Medical Condition - Physical Profile Record), effective 27 June 1978 * DA Form 3349 (Physical Profile Board Proceedings), 11 July 1984 * DA Form 3349 (Physical Profile Board Proceedings), 9 July 1987 * Standard Form (SF) 88 (Report of Medical Examination), 13 January 1988 * SF 88, 27 August 1985 * SF 88, 14 January 1975 * medical records (114 pages) FACTS: 1. The applicant did not file within the three-year time frame provided in Title 10, United States Code, section 1552(b); however, the Army Board for Correction of Military Records (ABCMR) conducted a substantive review of this case and determined it is in the interest of justice to excuse the applicant's failure to timely file. 2. Incorporated herein by reference are military records which were summarized in the previous consideration of the applicant's case by the Army Board for Correction of Military Records (ABCMR) in Docket Number AC9305872 on 8 December 1993. 3. The applicant states he was not given the correct disability percentage at separation. He served in Vietnam from 1 April 1968 to 1 September 1969 when he came in contact with Agent Orange which caused neuropathy in both arms, legs and spine. The Army did not give him the corrected disability percentage because his medical records were missing. He should have been medically retired. 4. The applicant was inducted into the Army of the United States on 9 January 1968. His DA Form 2-1 (Personnel Qualification Record) shows he served in Vietnam from 14 May 1968 to 13 August 1969. He was honorably discharged on 13 August 1969. 5. The applicant reenlisted in the Regular Army on 19 May 1975 for a period of 3 years. A DD Form 214 shows he was honorably discharged for immediate reenlistment. He reenlisted in the Regular Army on 10 July 1977 for 6 years, 16 September 1983 for 6 years, and 23 June 1989 for 4 years. 6. An SF 88, dated 15 January 1991, shows the applicant underwent a medical examination for the purpose of a Medical Evaluation Board (MEB) due to pain and numbness in left upper arm, shoulder, and neck with arm down. He was found not qualified for retention. 7. The accompanying MEB Narrative Summary (NARSUM) shows the chief complaint as stiff neck, left shoulder pain and numbness in left arm for eight (8) years. a. The symptoms began after the patient had a left shoulder muscle strain while lifting a tire. He also reported increased numbness and weakness on raising his left arm above his head. These symptoms were relieved by keeping his arm down in an anatomical position. He had been seen in the orthopedic, cardiothoracic, and neurosurgery clinics and was felt to have thoracic outlet syndrome by clinical history. On 8 November 1990, the patient underwent a left trans axial first rib resection without complication. He had resolution of his hand complaints, although he still had left shoulder pain and neck numbness and he had numbness on the inner aspect of his left brachium. A computerized tomography (CT) scan in April 1990 showed a small, central spur at C -C6 without foraminal or thecal involvement. Nerve conduction studies were normal. b. It was recommended the applicant be separated from the service in accordance with AR 40-501, section 3-14a2, specifically for left thoracic outlet syndrome without obvious predisposing factors. 8. A DA form 3349 shows the applicant received a permanent profile of 1P31111 effective 28 January 1991. A physical profile, as reflected on a DA Form 3349 (Physical Profile) or DD Form 2808, is derived using six body systems: "P" = physical capacity or stamina; "U" = upper extremities; "L" = lower extremities; "H" = hearing; "E" = eyes; and "S" = psychiatric (abbreviated as PULHES). Each body system has a numerical designation: 1 meaning a high level of fitness; 2 indicates some activity limitations are warranted, 3 reflects significant limitations, and 4 reflects one or more medical conditions of such a severity that performance of military duties must be drastically limited. Physical profile ratings can be either permanent or temporary. 9. A DA Form 3947 (Medical Evaluation Board Proceedings), 28 January 1991, shows the applicant was evaluated for left thoracic outlet syndrome without obvious predisposing factors (Med Board Diagnosis 1); and small central spur at C5-C6 without foraminal or thecal involvement (Med Board Diagnosis 2). It was recommended he be referred to a Physical Evaluation Board (PEB). The applicant elected that he did not desire to continue on active duty under AR 365-40. He agreed with the board’s findings and recommendations on 8 February 1991. 10. A DA Form 199 (Physical Evaluation Board (PEB) Proceedings) shows: a. An Informal PEB convened on 19 February 1991, wherein the applicant was found physically unfit with a recommended rating of 20 percent and that his disposition be separation with severance pay. b. The applicant was found unfit for left thoracic outlet syndrome associated with C5-C6 spur without neurologic involvement. Rated as neuralgia of the lower radicular group, rated as incomplete, mild. (Med Board Diagnosis 1 and NARSUM). c. Med Board Diagnosis 2 was found to be not unfitting and was not rated. e. The PEB made the following administrative determinations: (1) The disability disposition was not based on disease or injury incurred in the line of duty in combat with an enemy of the United States and as a direct result of armed conflict or caused by an instrumentality of war and incurred in the line of duty during a period of war as defined by law. (2) Evidence of record reflected the individual was a member or obligated to become a member of an Armed Force or Reserve thereof, or the NOAA or the USPHS on 24 September 1975. (3) The disability did not result from a combat-related injury under in 26 USC 104. f. The applicant concurred and waived a formal hearing of his case on 27 February 1991. 11. The U.S. Army Physical Disability Agency reviewed the PEB proceedings on 19 March 1991 and approved the findings of the board with the following administrative corrections to Item 8b (Disability Description): * as reads "MEBD Diag 1 and NARSUM" should read "MEBD Diag 1, 2 and NARSUM" * delete "MEBD Diag 2 not unfitting and not rated" 12. The applicant was honorably discharged on 22 April 1991 under the provisions of AR 365-40, paragraph 4-24B(3), for physical disability with severance pay. 13. The applicant provided the following: a. Bronze Star Medal Certificate with Citation, dated 26 April 1969, awarded for ground operations against a hostile force in Vietnam. b. Army Commendation Medal Certificate with Citation, dated 26 April 1969, awarded while serving in Vietnam. c. A DD Form 214 for the period ending 13 August 1969 showing the applicant was honorably discharged after 1 year, 7 months and 5 days of net service. It also shows the applicant had 1 year, 2 months, and 13 days of foreign service. Item 24 (Decorations, Medals, Badges, Commendations, Citations and Campaign Ribbons Awarded or Authorized) lists the following awards: * Bronze Star Medal * Army Commendation Medal * National Defense Service Medal * Vietnam Service Medal * Vietnam Campaign Medal d. A partial SF 88, dated 14 January 1975. It appears the purpose of the exam is for enlistment. e. A DA Form 3349 (Medical Condition - Physical Profile Record), effective 27 June 1978 shows he was assigned a temporary profile of T311111 for a pulled muscle of the abdominal wall. f. A DA Form 3349 (Medical Condition - Physical Profile Record), effective 1 August 1978, shows he was assigned a temporary profile of T311111 for pain, left chest wall. g. Army Achievement Medal Certificate, dated 16 November 1981, awarded while serving in Korea. h. Physical Profile Board Proceedings, dated 11 July 1984, shows he was assigned a temporary profile for a possible nerve pinch. i. A SF 88, dated 27 August 1985, shows the purpose of the exam as periodic. He was found qualified for separation or retention and was assigned a physical profile of 111111. j. A Physical Profile Board Proceedings, dated 9 July 1987, shows he was assigned a temporary profile. The reason for the profile is unknown as the form is illegible. k. A SF 88, dated 13 January 1988, shows the purpose of the exam as over 40. It shows in notes: history of thoracic outlet syndrome for 7 years pending surgery if increase in symptoms. He was found qualified for retention over 40 and was assigned a physical profile of 111111. l. A DA Form 3349 (Physical Profile), effective 16 April 1990, showing he was assigned a temporary profile of 1T31111 for neck pain. m. A DA Form 3349 (Physical Profile), effective 17 July 1990, showing he was assigned a permanent profile of 121111 for non-specific radiculopathy. n. A DA Form 3349 (Physical Profile), effective 16 October 1990, showing he was assigned a permanent profile of 131111 for non-specific radiculopathy and thoracic outlet syndrome. o. Orders T-35-2, dated 15 March 1991, showing he was reassigned for separation processing. p. A VA letter, dated 5 September 1991, showing a 40% combined disability rating for the following service connected conditions: * degenerative joint disease, cervical spine, rated 20% * thoracic outlet syndrome, left, with minor nerve damage, postoperative (minor) (left), rated 20% * fracture, left second toe, rated 0% * lumbar muscle strain, intermittent, rated 0% q. A VA Decision letter (pages 4 and 6 of 6 pages), dated 30 May 2018. This incomplete document shows the applicant’s non service connected conditions. r. 114 pages of his medical records. 14. 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. 15. Title 38, U.S. Code, Sections 1110 and 1131, permit the VA to award compensation for disabilities which were incurred in or aggravated by active military service. However, an award of a VA rating does not establish an error or injustice on the part of the Army. 16. 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. 17. Army Regulation 15-185 (Army Board for Correction of Military Records) 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. 18. MEDICAL REVIEW: The Army Review Boards Agency (ARBA) Medical Advisor reviewed the supporting documents and the applicant's records in the VA's Joint Legacy Viewer (JLV). The applicant was medically discharged through the Army disability system and given severance pay. The applicant stated that Agent Orange exposure in Vietnam caused neuropathy in both arms, legs and in his spine. He contends that loss of his medical records led to his not receiving a disability percentage which would have led to his receiving medical disability retirement. a. Pertinent medical records and related (1) 14Jan1975 Report of Med Exam (for induction/enlistment). He was status post limited thoracotomy to repair a rib cage defect. Per view of records, he had left pectus carinatum repair in 1972 while in civilian status. (2) 27Aug1985 Report of Med Exam for separation or retention. His physical profile was PULHES 111111. (3) 13Jan1988 Report of Med Exam. history of Thoracic Outlet Syndrome (TOS) for 7 years pending surgery if symptoms increased. His physical profile was PULHES 111111. (4) Per 20Dec1990 MEB NARSUM notes, after an 8 year history of stiff neck, left shoulder pain and numbness in the left arm, he underwent left trans axial first rib resection on 08Nov1990 without complication. He had also reported numbness and weakness when he raised his arm above his head. The original injury was thought to be due to lifting a heavy tire. At the time of the MEB NARSUM, he was unable to leave his left arm below the level of his heart for more than a few minutes without having numbness and tingling in the arm and aching in the left shoulder. After the rib resection, he did start to experience decreased sensation to pin prick and light touch. This description was similar to that found in the 15Jan1991 Report of Medical Examination for the MEB. Also of import, during the clinical evaluation, examination of both the upper and lower extremity was “normal” except for the upper extremity sensory deficits as previously noted. The exam showed upper and lower extremity strength was normal (5/5) bilaterally, and deep tendon reflexes were normal (2+) bilaterally. Nerve conduction studies were reportedly normal. He had a permanent U3 dated 28Jan1991 for Left TOS which among other restrictions limited his lifting to 25 pounds. (5) The MEB determined that the Left Thoracic Outlet Syndrome Without Obvious Predisposing Factors condition was the underlying reason for separation from service, and that the condition failed medical retention standards. Small Central Spur at C5-C6 Without Foraminal or Thecal Involvement condition, was also listed on DA Form 3947 as part of MEB proceedings. (6) The 19Feb1991 PEB Proceedings (corrected DA Form 199) indicated that the Left Thoracic Outlet Syndrome associated with C5-C6 Spur Without Neurologic Involvement condition, was found unfitting for continued service. The condition was rated as neuralgia of the lower radicular group as incomplete, and mild in severity at 20% under DC 8712. The disposition was separation with severance pay. The applicant concurred and waived a formal hearing of his case. (7) The 05Sep1991 VA Decision Letter showed total combined rating at 40% for the following: Degenerative Joint Disease, Cervical Spine at 20%; Thoracic Outlet Syndrome, Left, with Minor Nerve Damage, Post Operative (minor) (left) at 20%; Fracture Left Second Toe 0%; and Lumbar Muscle Strain, Intermittent 0%. The effective date of the decision was 01May1991. (8) JLV search today showed that the VA service connected the Lumbar Strain condition at 10% as well as 10% each for Right and Left Inflammation of the Sciatic Nerve. b. The applicant’s medical records were carefully reviewed for signs/symptoms related to peripheral neuropathy attributable to spine and/or upper and lower extremity involvement. (1) There was one remote note (14Dec1976 during which the applicant was seen for numbness in the left leg when he sat down. The provider thought his wallet (in the back pocket) may be irritating his sciatic nerve. There were no follow up visits. There were a few notes which referenced thoracic pain also referred to as chest wall pain in the record. It appeared the symptoms were thought to be due to residuals status post his thoracotomy surgery (for his congenital condition) or due to his body posture. Both were sometimes exacerbated (heavy lifting etc.); but these were reportedly treated successfully with physical therapy and back class (27Sep1978 2nd BN 72 Armor Aid Station, 15Feb1980 Neurology Clinic, 12Feb1990 Physical Therapy evaluation). (2) There were several reports of neck pain (usually left side) that in addition to his Left TOS, were also attributed to degenerative arthritis in the neck. His neck degenerative joint condition was treated conservatively over the years with physical therapy and non narcotic prescription medication (06Jul1982 Troop Medical Clinic, November 1985 McWethy Medical Clinic, 13Jun1986 McWethy Medical Clinic). The applicant was also seen by a neurologist in June 1984 to evaluate for possible cervical radiculitis. The work up revealed a normal neurologic exam and normal EMG studies and did not show any other significant findings except for the early degenerative changes in the cervical spine (27Oct1984 Administrative Note). The ARBA Medical Reviewer also reviewed records to determine if the applicant should have received a separate rating for Cervical Degenerative Joint Disease, as MEB NARSUM notes did indicate that he reported a stiff neck and cervical CT scan reportedly showed degenerative changes at C5-C6. (3) On 30Jan1990 (McWethy Medical Clinic TMC), he was seen for visit for TOS and degenerative joint disease. He was also complaining of headaches at that time. He was placed on a profile for 30 days and given an orthopedic consult. He underwent physical therapy in February and April 1990 which decreased both his headaches and neck pain. The final temporary physical profile (T3) for Neck Pain was dated 16Apr1990. Following the findings of the 15May1990 CT of cervical spine showing stenosis at the C5-C6 level (without foraminal or thecal encroachment), he was seen by neurosurgery. His symptoms were non specific left upper extremity dyesthesia with positional activities such as elevation. On 17Jul1990, the opinion of the neurosurgeon was that although the applicant had arthritis in the neck and shoulder those symptoms still appeared to be controlled by conservative measures (meds, traction, PT). The EMG/NCV were negative. There was no evidence of specific radiculopathy or myelopathy. His persistent symptoms appeared to be more consistent with Thoracic Outlet Syndrome. c. PEB rating for the Left Thoracic Outlet Syndrome associated with C5-C6 Spur Without Neurologic Involvement condition. (1) There were frequent reports of left shoulder and arm pain, numbness or tingling, that was treated for years conservatively (multiple rounds of physical therapy, medication etc), and ultimately with surgery. Despite surgery, the sensory symptoms persisted. After the rib resection surgery in November 1990, he maintained normal motor exam and deep tendon reflexes. However, he was found to have the following sensory deficits: Decreased sensation to pin prick and light touch on the inner aspect of the left upper arm. And he continued to experienced symptoms when his left arm was below the level of his heart (dependent position) to include pain and numbness in left upper arm, shoulder and neck. (2) Per VASRD, incomplete paralysis of peripheral nerve injuries, indicate a degree of loss or impaired function substantially less than the clinical picture for complete paralysis. When the involvement is wholly sensory, the rating should be for the mild, or at most, the moderate degree. The applicant had full strength and movement of the upper left extremity. His condition was rated as mild for incomplete paralysis of the lower radicular nerve. The rating was equivalent to that shown in the contemporaneous VA rating for Thoracic Outlet Syndrome, Left, with Minor Nerve Damage, Post Operative (minor) (left) at 20%. (3) The MEB did not determine that the C5-C6 degenerative neck joint disease condition failed retention standards. The PEB did not find that the C5-C6 degenerative neck joint disease condition was separately unfitting or that it should receive a separate rating. At the time of the MEB, the applicant was not reporting thoracic or lumbar spine complaints nor was he reporting sensory, motor or neurologic symptoms that could be attributable to thoracolumbar spine problems. There were no permanent level 3 physical profiles for spinal or peripheral neuropathy conditions. With the exception of the Left TOS condition, evidence was insufficient to support that there were any other medical conditions which failed retention standards at the time of discharge. BOARD DISCUSSION: 1. After reviewing the application, all supporting documents, and the evidence found within the military record, the Board found partial relief is warranted. The Board found the available evidence sufficient to consider this case fully and fairly without a personal appearance by the applicant. 2. The Board found that the complexities around the disabling condition that led to the applicant’s discharge with severance pay warrant additional review by a medical professional versed in the standards that apply to the Disability Evaluation System. Based on a preponderance of the evidence, the Board determined the applicant’s record should be referred to the appropriate office to determine if his disabling condition was rated properly or if he had any other conditions that were unfitting and should have received a disability rating. BOARD VOTE: Mbr 1 Mbr 2 Mbr 3 : : : GRANT FULL RELIEF :X :X :X GRANT PARTIAL RELIEF : : : GRANT FORMAL HEARING : : : DENY APPLICATION BOARD DETERMINATION/RECOMMENDATION: 1. The Board determined the evidence presented is sufficient to warrant a recommendation for partial relief. As a result, the Board recommends that all Department of the Army records of the individual concerned be corrected by referring his records to the Office of The Surgeon General for review to determine if the disability evaluation he received from the Army accurately depicted his conditions as they existed at the time. a. If a review by the Office of The Surgeon General determines the evidence supports amendment of his disability evaluation records, the individual concerned will be afforded due process through the Disability Evaluation System for consideration of any additional diagnoses (or changed diagnoses) identified as having not met retention standards prior to his discharge. b. In the event that a formal PEB becomes necessary, the individual concerned will be issued invitational travel orders to prepare for and participate in consideration of his case by a formal PEB. All required reviews and approvals will be made subsequent to completion of the formal PEB. c. Should a determination be made that the applicant should be retired for disability, these proceedings serve as the authority to issue him the appropriate separation retroactive to his original separation date, with entitlement to all back pay and allowances and/or retired pay, less any entitlements already received. 2. The Board further determined the evidence presented is insufficient to warrant a portion of the requested relief. As a result, the Board recommends denial of so much of the application that pertains to any relief without benefit of the review described above. 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, United States Code, section 1552(b), provides that applications for correction of military records must be filed within 3 years after discovery of the alleged error or injustice. This provision of law also allows the ABCMR to excuse an applicant's failure to timely file within the 3-year statute of limitations if the ABCMR determines it would be in the interest of justice to do so. 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 an MEB; when they receive a permanent medical profile rating of 3 or 4 in any factor and are referred by an MOS Medical Retention Board; and/or they are command-referred for a fitness-for-duty medical examination. b. The disability evaluation assessment process involves two distinct stages: the MEB and PEB. The purpose of the MEB is to determine whether the service member's injury or illness is severe enough to compromise his/her ability to return to full duty based on the job specialty designation of the branch of service. A PEB is an administrative body possessing the authority to determine whether or not a service member is fit for duty. A designation of "unfit for duty" is required before an individual can be separated from the military because of an injury or medical condition. Service members who are determined to be unfit for duty due to disability either are separated from the military or are permanently retired, depending on the severity of the disability and length of military service. Individuals who are "separated" receive a one-time severance payment, while veterans who retire based upon disability receive monthly military retired pay and have access to all other benefits afforded to military retirees. c. The mere presence of a medical impairment does not in and of itself justify a finding of unfitness. In each case, it is necessary to compare the nature and degree of physical disability present with the requirements of the duties the Soldier may reasonably be expected to perform because of his or her office, grade, rank, or rating. Reasonable performance of the preponderance of duties will invariably result in a finding of fitness for continued duty. A Soldier is physically unfit when a medical impairment prevents reasonable performance of the duties required of the Soldier's office, grade, rank, or rating. 3. 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. 4. 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. 5. 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. Once a determination of physical unfitness is made, all disabilities are rated using the Department of Veterans Affairs Schedule for Rating Disabilities (VASRD). 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. 6. Army Regulation 40-501 (Standards of Medical Fitness) governs medical fitness standards for enlistment, induction, appointment (including officer procurement programs), retention, and separation (including retirement). The Department of Veterans Affairs Schedule for Rating Disabilities (VASRD). VASRD is used by the Army and the VA as part of the process of adjudicating disability claims. It is a guide for evaluating the severity of disabilities resulting from all types of diseases and injuries encountered as a result of or incident to military service. This degree of severity is expressed as a percentage rating which determines the amount of monthly compensation. 7. Section 1556 of Title 10, United States Code, 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) 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) AR20220000793 1 ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 1