IN THE CASE OF: BOARD DATE: 7 December 2022 DOCKET NUMBER: AR20220001633 APPLICANT REQUESTS: * reconsideration of his prior request for physical disability retirement * personal appearance before the Board APPLICANT'S SUPPORTING DOCUMENT(S) CONSIDERED BY THE BOARD: * DD Form 293 (Application for the Review of Discharge from the Armed Forces of the United States) * DD Form 2807-1 (Report of Medical History) * multiple Weight Control Program documents * The Federal Strategic Health Alliance memorandum pertaining to result of retention physical, 28 January 2004 * partial DD Form 2808 (Report of Medical Examination) * multiple Medical Evaluation Board (MEB)/Physical Evaluation Board (PEB) referral memoranda * Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) letter * multiple DA Forms 4836 (Oath of Extension of Enlistment or Reenlistment) * VA Certificate of Visit * numerous sets of reassignment and temporary duty (TDY) orders * Brooke Army Medical Center (BAMC) memorandum * multiple memoranda appointing a Line of Duty (LOD) Investigating Officer * multiple memoranda to the President, PEB pertaining to the Army Physical Fitness Test (APFT) * multiple sets of U.S. Army Reserve (USAR) discharge orders and revocation orders * email correspondence * Army Reserve Personnel Command (ARPC) Form 249-E (Chronological Statement of Retirement Points) FACTS: 1. Incorporated herein by reference are military records which were summarized in the previous consideration of the applicant's case by the Army Board for Correction of Military Records (ABCMR) in Docket Number AR20100009128 on 21 September 2010. 2. The applicant states his discharge from the U.S. Army Reserve (USAR) should have been a medical retirement due to the following conditions: * post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD), referred to as depression/bipolar disorder * left and right shoulder conditions * left and right feet conditions * left and right hand conditions * left and right knee conditions 3. After prior honorable service in the Army National Guard (ARNG) from 5 September 1989 through 11 September 1991, the applicant enlisted in the Regular Army on 7 January 1992 and served in Southwest Asia from 1 September 1997 through 15 December 1997. 4. On 20 August 1998, the applicant enlisted in the USAR for a period of 6 years. 5. The applicant’s DD Form 214 (Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty) shows the following: * after 6 years, 8 months, and 19 days of net active service, he was honorably discharged from the Regular Army due to completion of required active service on 25 September 1998 * he was transferred to a USAR Troop Program Unit (TPU) in Houston, TX 6. A DD Form 2807-1 (Report of Medical History), dated 22 November 2003, shows the applicant underwent medical examination for the purpose of USAR retention on the date of the form and indicated he had the following: * bronchitis * sinusitis * arthritis * impaired us of arms, legs, hands, or feet * knee trouble * indigestion * skin diseases * severe headache * trouble sleeping * depression or excessive worry * a 60 percent service-connected disability from the VA for an unspecified condition or conditions 7. A Weight Control Program Summary Sheet shows the applicant entered the Army Weight Control Program on 6 June 2004, a Suspension of Favorable Action (Flag) was initiated on the same date, and his monthly weigh-ins between September 2004 through February 2006 show alternately satisfactory and unsatisfactory progress. 8. A memorandum from The Federal Strategic Health Alliance, dated 28 January 2004, provided the applicant’s unit commander/command surgeon with the results of the applicant’s retention physical/annual dental examination. The memorandum shows the following: * the applicant was found physically fit for retention under the provisions of Army Regulation 40-501 (Standards of Medical Fitness) * the applicant had one or more abnormal finding per a urinalysis, as indicated on the DD Form 2808, requiring follow-up, which was the responsibility of the applicant and was to be done at no expense to the USAR * result of the physical examination required the commander’s review and action 9. Page 3 of a 3-page DD Form 2808 was provided, which shows the following: a. The applicant was found qualified for servicing pending medical review. b. He was given a PULHES (P- Physical capacity or stamina, U- Upper extremities, L-Lower extremities, H-Hearing and ears, E-Eyes, S-Psychiatric) physical profile rating of P2, U3, L3, H1, E1, S2 on 28 January 2004. That rating was stricken through with a line and underneath is annotated a physical profile rating of P2, U4, L4, H1, E1, S2) c. His listed significant or disqualifying defects were as follows: * arthritis bilateral knees, bilateral shoulders, bilateral hands * bipolar disorder, depression * folliculitis d. The summary of his defects and diagnoses shows the following: * arthritis both knees, shoulders, hands, 60 percent VA service-connected * gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD * headaches * depression, bipolar disorder e. The recommendations for further specialist examinations indicated shows the applicant was being followed at the Houston VA Medical Center (VAMC). 10. A memorandum from Headquarters, 75th Division (Training Support) to the applicant’s TPU, dated 24 March 2004, with the subject “referral to the MEB/PEB”, shows the following: * the applicant had a permanent physical profile rating of P3/P4 * he had a medical condition that did not allow him to appear before the Military Occupational Specialty (MOS) Medical Retention Board (MMRB) at the 75th Division * his DA Form 3349 (Physical Profile) needed his commander’s signature * a signed DA Form 3349 along with the applicant’s medical records and an approved DA Form 2173 (Statement of Medical Examination and Duty Status) indicating line of duty (LOD) status were to be sent to this Headquarters for further processing 11. A memorandum from Headquarters, 75th Division (Training Support) to the Commander, BAMC, dated 16 May 2004, requested a fit for duty evaluation/MEB referral for the applicant. The memorandum shows the following: a. The applicant may be unable to perform the duties of his MOS due to his medical conditions of bilateral knee/shoulder/hand arthritis, bipolar disorder, and folliculitis, as determined by a review of medical records and/or a DA Form 3349. A complete formal investigation was requested. b. The applicant was not eligible to appear before the 75th Division (Training Support) MMRB and possesses a potential medical disqualification in accordance with Army Regulation 40-501, chapter 3. 12. The applicant’s available service and medical records do not contain a DA Form 3349. 13. A VA letter, dated 21 July 2004 and signed by a Staff Physician shows the following: a. The applicant requested this letter be written on his behalf as he was requesting medical documentation in connection with determining his medical eligibility for continued medical service. b. The applicant has been followed at the Houston VAMC since January 1999 and has significant medical and mental health diagnoses, which include the following: * hyperlipidemia * elevated liver function tests * degenerative joint disease of the hand, knees, and shoulder * GERD * intermittent explosive disorder * mood disorder c. Due to these medical difficulties, the Staff Physician did not feel the applicant was a good candidate for military deployment and strongly recommended he be referred to an MEB for possible discharge from the USAR. 14. A DA Form 4836 (Oath of Extension of Enlistment or Reenlistment), dated 7 August 2004, shows the applicant extended his enlistment in the USAR by 12 months, extending his then current USAR expiration term of service (ETS) of 19 August 2004 to a new ETS date of 19 August 2005. 15. A Houston VAMC Certificate of Visit, dated 15 September 2004, shows the applicant was seen in the Prime Care Clinic on the date of the form and was restricted from running, prolonged walking, pushups, and sit-ups. He had a P4 physical profile in physical factors U and L and was unable to participate in the Army Physical Fitness Test (APFT) until evaluated by orthopedics. It was suggested he be seen by an MEB to determine his eligibility to remain in the service. 16. 90th Regional Readiness Command Order Number 003410, dated 7 October 2004, ordered the applicant to proceed on TDY to Fort Sam Houston, TX to undergo a physical effective 11 October 2004. 17. A BAMC memorandum for the Commander, Headquarters, 75th Division (Training Support), dated 12 October 2004, provides the following fit for duty evaluation: a. Medical evaluation of the applicant shows he did not meet retention standards per Army Regulation 40-501, paragraph 3-14c for knee pain, preventing APFT and shoulder pain limiting MOS performance. b. As no LOD was currently present, the applicant was referred to his USAR channels for retention determination and disposition. c. This determination was based upon a record review and Soldier interview. d. The following conditions were identified: * bilateral knee osteoarthritis versus patellofemoral pain * bilateral shoulder arthritis * bipolar disorder, recent onset, not service-connected and listed as medically acceptable on physical 18. A Headquarters, 75th Division (Training Support) memorandum, dated 4 January 2005, appointed an investigating officer (IO) to conduct a formal investigation into the applicant’s medical condition. From the available evidence in the applicant’s medical records and from the applicant himself, the IO was to make a finding as to whether the injuries or illnesses were valid and occurred during active duty, annual training, or drill. 19. The applicant provided multiple sets of orders reassigning him from one TPU to another TPU within his USAR command between 9 March 2005 and 19 June 2006. 20. A Headquarters, 75th Division (Training Support) memorandum for the President, PEB, dated 30 March 2005, shows the applicant took his last APFT in March 1999 and has been unable to take another APFT since that date due to bilateral knees, shoulders, and hands arthritis. He has been found unfit for continued service and elects a PEB to review his case. His permanent physical profile was approved on 6 March 2004. 21. A DA Form 4856 (Developmental Counseling Form) shows the applicant was counseled on 26 June 2005 regarding his reenlistment eligibility. He was on the overweight program and was ineligible for reenlistment, but could extend his contract. 22. A second DA Form 4836, dated 26 June 2005, shows the applicant again extended his contract in the USAR by another 12 months, giving him a new ETS date of 19 August 2006. 23. Two additional memoranda from Headquarters, 1st Battalion (Training Support), 289th Regiment, 4th Brigade, 75th Division (Training Support), dated 1 August 2005 and 22 December 2005, appointed two additional IOs to conduct a formal investigation into the applicant’s medical condition. From the available evidence in the applicant’s medical records and from the applicant himself, the IOs were to make a finding as to whether the injuries or illnesses were valid and occurred during active duty, annual training, or drill. 24. Despite records documenting the appointment of multiple IOs, the applicant’s available service records do not contain a DA Form 2173, a DD Form 261 (Report of Investigation Line of Duty Misconduct Status), or any other documentation indicating he had a condition, injury, or illness approved as having been incurred in the LOD. 25. The applicant provided email correspondence from the Senior Health Care Noncommissioned Officer, Headquarters, 75th Division (Training Support) and other USAR individuals between November 2005 and June 2006, indicating there was an issue with outstanding LODs pertaining to the applicant. There is no evidence of record indicating how this was resolved. 26. A third DA Form 4836 dated 17 August 2006, shows the applicant again extended his contract in the USAR by another 6 months, giving him a new ETS date of 19 February 2007. 27. A final memorandum from Headquarters, 75th Division (Training Support), dated 23 January 2007, to the PEB shows the applicant’s last APFT was taken on 12 September 2004 and he had not taken another since then due to his U4/L4 physical profile rating. He was unable to participate in the APFT until evaluated by orthopedics, It was suggested he be seen by a Medical Review Board to determine his eligibility to remain in the service. 28. Headquarters, Headquarters, 75th Division (Training Support) Orders 07-108-0004, dated 18 April 2007, honorably discharged the applicant from the USAR effective 19 February 2007, citing the authority of Army Regulation 135-178 (ARNG and Reserve Enlisted Administrative Separations). The regulating paragraph is not listed. 29. The applicant’s DA Form 5016 (Chronological Statement of Retirement Points), covering the entirety of his service from 5 September 1989 through 19 February 2007, shows he earned a total of14 qualifying years for retirement. 30. The applicant previously applied to the ABCMR requesting physical disability retirement. ABCMR Docket Number AR20100009128 reflects that on 21 September 2010, the Board denied the applicant’s request, determining the evidence did not demonstrate the existence of a probable error or injustice. 31. The applicant’s VA Rating Decision is not in his available records for review and has not been provided by the applicant for review. 32. 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. 33. Title 38, USC, Sections 1110 and 1131, permit the VA to award compensation for disabilities which were incurred in or aggravated by active military service. However, an award of a VA rating does not establish an error or injustice on the part of the Army. 34. 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. 35. MEDICAL REVIEW: 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: a. The applicant applied to the ABCMR in essence requesting a referral to the Disability Evaluation System (DES). He states: “The discharge should have been for a medical retirement due to the issues listed. The issues are 1) PTSD labeled depression/bipolar disorder; 2) Left and right shoulder; 3) Left and right feet; 4) Left and right hands; 5) Left and right knees.” b. The Record of Proceedings details the applicant’s military service and the circumstances of the case. c. A 28 January 2004 memorandum from the Federal Strategic Heal Alliance stated the applicant was “fit for retention under provisions of AR 40-501, Standards of Medical Fitness.” It also stated “Results of physical examination requires commander to review and/or take appropriate action.” The third page of a Report of Medical Examination (DD Form 2808) also dated 28 January 2004 lists his diagnoses: 1) Arthritis both knees, shoulders, hand 60% SC {VA service connected} 2) GERD {gastroesophageal reflux disease} 3) Headaches 4) Depression, Bipolar disorder. d. From a 16 May 2004 memorandum penned by the command surgeon for the 75th Division (Training Support): “The above referenced soldier may be unable to perform the duties of his/her MOS due to the soldier's medical condition (BILATERAL KNEE / SHOULDER / HAND ARTHIRITIS, BIPOLAR DISORDER, FOLLICULITUS) as determined by review of medical and/or DA 3349 records. I request completion of a formal medical investigation.” e. A 15 September 2004 memorandum states the applicant a on a permanent duty limiting physical. This duty limiting permanent profile was issued on 6 March 2004 for “Arthritis (bilateral knees, bilateral shoulders, hands), bipolar.” The bipolar was an S2 denoting it was not a duly limiting medical condition. f. Orders show he was sent to Brooke Army Medical Center (BAMC) in October 2004 for a fitness for duty evaluation. In a 12 October 2004 memorandum from a BAMC Medical Board Physician: “Soldier does not meet retention standards per AR 40-501, 3-14c for knee pain preventing APFT and shoulder pain limiting MOS performance. As no LOD {line of duty} is currently present, soldier is referred to his Reserve channels for retention determination and disposition. g. From his battalion commander’s 30 March 2005 memorandum to “President, Physical Evaluation Board:” “SFC {Applicant} took his last Army Physical Fitness Test (APFT) in March 1999. SFC {Applicant} has been unable to take another APFT since that date due to Bilateral knees, shoulders, and hands arthritis he has been found unfit for continued service and elects a PEB Board to review the case. His permanent profile was approved on 6 MAR 04.” h. This was for a non-duty related physical evaluation board or NDR-PEB. A non- duty related physical evaluation board allows Reserve Component (RC) Service Members who are not on a call to active duty of more than 30 days and who are pending separation for non-duty related medical conditions but desire to remain in their component to enter the Disability Evaluation System (DES) for a determination of fitness. A NDR-PEB affords these Soldiers the opportunity to have fitness determined under the standards that apply to Soldiers who have the statutory right to be referred to the DES for a duty related medical condition. i. A similar memorandum was sent to the NDR-PEB by his then company commander on 23 January 2007: “SFC {Applicant} last APFT was taken on 12 September 2004. He has not taken an APFT since then due a medical doctor stating ‘Mr. {Applicant} has a P4 for U/L {upper extremities / lower extremities} on PULHES. He is unable to participate in APFT until evaluated by orthopedics. Suggest that he be seen by Medical Review Board to determine eligibility to remain in service.’” j. The results of the NDR-PEB were not submitted with the application nor uploaded into iPERMS. Order published by the 75th Division (Training Support) show the applicant has honorably discharged for the USAR effective 19 February 2007. k. No medical documentation was submitted with the application. There are no encounters in AHLTA or medical documents in MEDCHART. No evidence was found showing that one or more of his medically disqualifying conditions was either incurred during or permanently aggravated by his military service, i.e. was duty related and thereby eligible for processing through he duty related DES. l. Review of his records in JLV shows he has been awarded multiple VA service- connected disability ratings. However, the DES compensates an individual only for service incurred medical condition(s) which have been determined to disqualify him or her from further military service. The DES has neither the role nor the authority to compensate service members for anticipated future severity or potential complications of conditions which were incurred or permanently aggravated during their military service; or which did not cause or contribute to the termination of their military career. These roles and authorities are granted by Congress to the Department of Veterans Affairs and executed under a different set of laws. m. It is the opinion of the Agency Medical Advisor that a referral of his case to the Disability Evaluation System is not warranted. 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 through counsel of the applicant’s petition, available military records and the medical advisory the Board concurred with the advising official finding no evidence showing that one or more of his medically disqualifying conditions was either incurred during or permanently aggravated by his military service, i.e. was duty related and thereby eligible for processing through he duty related DES. As such the Board found no evidence of error or injustice that would warrant a referral of his case back to the DES. Therefore, relief was denied. 2. Referral to the IDES occurs when a Soldier has one or more conditions which appear to fail medical retention standards as documented on a duty liming permanent physical profile. The DES compensates an individual only for service incurred medical condition(s) which have been determined to disqualify him or her from further military service. The DES has neither the role nor the authority to compensate service members for anticipated future severity or potential complications of conditions which were incurred or permanently aggravated during their military service; or which did not cause or contribute to the termination of their military career. These roles and authorities are granted by Congress to the Department of Veterans Affairs and executed under a different set of laws. 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, U.S. Code, chapter 61, provides the Secretaries of the Military Departments with authority to retire or discharge a member if they find the member unfit to perform military duties because of physical disability. The U.S. Army Physical Disability Agency is responsible for administering the Army physical disability evaluation system and executes Secretary of the Army decision-making authority as directed by Congress in chapter 61 and in accordance with DOD Directive 1332.18 and Army Regulation 635-40 (Disability Evaluation for Retention, Retirement, or Separation). a. Soldiers are referred to the disability system when they no longer meet medical retention standards in accordance with Army Regulation 40-501 (Standards of Medical Fitness), chapter 3, as evidenced in 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. 2. Army Regulation 635-40 establishes the Army Disability Evaluation System and sets forth policies, responsibilities, and procedures that apply in determining whether a Soldier is unfit because of physical disability to reasonably perform the duties of his office, grade, rank, or rating. Only the unfitting conditions or defects and those which contribute to unfitness will be considered in arriving at the rated degree of incapacity warranting retirement or separation for disability. a. Disability compensation is not an entitlement acquired by reason of service- incurred illness or injury; rather, it is provided to Soldiers whose service is interrupted and who can no longer continue to reasonably perform because of a physical disability incurred or aggravated in military service. b. Soldiers who sustain or aggravate physically-unfitting disabilities must meet the following line-of-duty criteria to be eligible to receive retirement and severance pay benefits: (1) The disability must have been incurred or aggravated while the Soldier was entitled to basic pay or as the proximate cause of performing active duty or inactive duty training. (2) The disability must not have resulted from the Soldier's intentional misconduct or willful neglect and must not have been incurred during a period of unauthorized absence. 3. Army Regulation 40-501 provides information on medical fitness standards for induction, enlistment, appointment, retention, and related policies and procedures. Soldiers with conditions listed in chapter 3 who do not meet the required medical standards will be evaluated by an MEB and will be referred to a PEB as defined in Army Regulation 635–40 with the following caveats: a. U.S. Army Reserve (USAR) or Army National Guard (ARNG) Soldiers not on active duty, whose medical condition was not incurred or aggravated during an active duty period, will be processed in accordance with chapter 9 and chapter 10 of this regulation. b. Normally, Reserve Component Soldiers who do not meet the fitness standards set by chapter 3 will be transferred to the Retired Reserve per Army Regulation 140–10 or discharged from the Reserve Component per Army Regulation 135–175 (Separation of Officers), Army Regulation 135–178 (ARNG and Reserve Enlisted Administrative Separations), or other applicable Reserve Component regulation. They will be transferred to the Retired Reserve only if eligible and if they apply for it. d. Reserve Component Soldiers who do not meet medical retention standards may request continuance in active USAR status. In such cases, a medical impairment incurred in either military or civilian status will be acceptable; it need not have been incurred only in the line of duty. Reserve Component Soldiers with non-duty related medical conditions who are pending separation for not meeting the medical retention standards of chapter 3 may request referral to a PEB for a determination of fitness in accordance with paragraph 9–12. 4. Title 10 USC, section 12731b (Special rule for members with physical disabilities not incurred in the line of duty), enacted 23 October 1992, provides in pertinent part that in the case of a member of the Selected Reserve of a Reserve Component (RC) who no longer meets the qualifications for membership in the Selected Reserve solely because the member is unfit because of physical disability, the Secretary concerned may, for the purpose of Section 12731 of this title, determine to treat the member as having met the service requirement and provide the member notification required if the member completed at least 15 years, but less than 20 years of qualifying service for retirement purposes as of 1 October 1991. This special provision of the law is applicable only to members who are medically disqualified for continued service in an RC. 5. Title 10, U.S. Code, section 1201, provides for the physical disability retirement of a member who has at least 20 years of service or a disability rating of at least 30 percent. Title 10, U.S. Code, section 1203, provides for the physical disability separation of a member who has less than 20 years of service and a disability rating of less than 30 percent. 6. 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. 7. 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. 8. Title 10, U.S. Code, section 1556 requires the Secretary of the Army to ensure that an applicant seeking corrective action by the Army Review Boards Agency (ARBA) be provided with a copy of any correspondence and communications (including summaries of verbal communications) to or from the Agency with anyone outside the Agency that directly pertains to or has material effect on the applicant's case, except as authorized by statute. ARBA medical advisory opinions and reviews are authored by ARBA civilian and military medical and behavioral health professionals and are therefore internal agency work product. Accordingly, ARBA does not routinely provide copies of ARBA Medical Office recommendations, opinions (including advisory opinions), and reviews to Army Board for Correction of Military Records applicants (and/or their counsel) prior to adjudication. 9. 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) AR20220001633 1 ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 1