IN THE CASE OF: BOARD DATE: 28 February 2023 DOCKET NUMBER: AR20220006983 APPLICANT REQUESTS: in effect, a physical disability retirement instead of her entry level separation/performance and conduct with an uncharacterized discharge. APPLICANT'S SUPPORTING DOCUMENT(S) CONSIDERED BY THE BOARD: * DD Form 149 (Application for Correction of Military Record) * two Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) benefits summary letters, 10 March 2021 and 4 January 2022 * VA service verification letter, 4 January 2022 FACTS: 1. The applicant did not file within the 3-year time frame provided in Title 10, U.S. 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. The applicant states she was in a military mental hospital in December 1996. She became unfit to serve and she was discharged and sent home in February 1997. She does not believe the military checked on her mental health condition. She did not know help was available. She felt left behind. 3. The applicant provided: a. A VA benefits summary letter, dated 10 March 2021, showing she had an honorable period of service in the Army from 7 October 1996 to 12 December 1996. b. A VA benefits summary letter, dated 4 January 2022, showing her combined service connected evaluation is 100 percent and she is considered to be totally and permanently disabled. The effective date of the last change to her current award was 1 December 2021. c. A VA service verification letter, dated 4 January 2022, showing she served in the Army from 7 October 1996 to 12 December 1996 and her character of service was “Other Than Honorable Conditions”. 4. A review of the applicant’s service record shows she underwent a medical examination for the purpose of enlistment on 16 May 1996. Her SF 88 (Report of Medical Examination) shows abdomen and viscera abnormalities. Her SF 93 (Report of Medical History) shows she reported she was in good health. 5. On 14 June 1996, she enlisted in the United States Army Reserve (USAR) for a period of 8 years. Orders 113-03, Military Entrance Processing Station, shows she was ordered to initial active duty for training (IADT), effective 8 October 1996. She reported to Fort Leonard Wood, MO, on 7 October 1996, for completion of IADT. 6. On 5 November 1996, she underwent a mental status evaluation. Her behavior was normal, she was fully alert, her level of orientation showed she was fully oriented. Her mood affect was unremarkable, her thinking process was clear, her thought content was normal, and her memory was good. She also had the mental capacity to understand and participate in proceeding [deemed appropriate by her chain of command]. She had been evaluated on Ward 4C [Fort Leonard Wood Hospital] and she did not meet the criteria for separation via medical channels. She did not possess coping skills necessary to remain on active duty. If she remained on active duty, the risk for self- destructive behavior would continue. Expeditious administrative separation was recommended. 7. A General Counseling Form, dated 12 November 1996, shows the applicant was counseled and advised she was being recommended for separation for entry level performance and conduct, due to her inability to adapt and conform to military standards and the structured way of life. Since she had attempted suicide to remove herself from the military atmosphere it was believed it was in her best interest and in the best interest of the Army that an entry level separation (ELS) be initiated. 8. A Report of Mental Status Evaluation, dated 13 November 1996, shows the applicant was fully alert and fully oriented, her behavior was normal, her mood or affect was flat, her thinking process was confused, her thought content included hallucinations, and her memory was fair. She had the mental capacity to understand and participate in proceeding and she was mentally responsible. Additionally, this evaluation shows: The applicant was a 20-year-old, single female, currently in her second week of basic training. a. She was referred to Community Mental Health Services (CMHS) by her unit for evaluation of behavior. She stated that she had been having headaches and hearing voices inside her head that were telling her to hurt herself. She had been hearing the voices since age 12. She stated that she could not control them, and she heard them every 10 minutes during the entire day. b. She was seen by Specialist in the Emergency Room on 25 October 1996 for taking 10 800 milligram Motrin to try and kill herself. She stated that “she plays like she is happy so people do not look at her like she is crazy.” c. IMPRESSION: She was showing some signs of borderline personality disorder. She appeared to have re-occurrent thoughts of suicide that would hamper her ability to train and become a productive Soldier. She was seen by LTC and spent some time on Ward 4C. She did not appear to possess the necessary coping skills to become a productive Soldier. The recommendation was that she be processed for an expeditious separation by ELS. 9. On 18 November 1996, in a General Counseling Form, the applicant was again advised she was being recommended for an ELS, under the provisions of chapter 11, AR 635-200. This was based on the recommendations of her chain of command, the CMHS, and her commanders’ observations of her emotional and mental stability. Since she arrived [at the unit] she demonstrated psychological tendencies which were not conducive to productive military service. These problems made her a training distraction for the drill sergeants and other members of her platoon. She attempted to hurt herself and she gave no indication of overcoming her adjustment problems with the Army. The military can be a very stressful and demanding environment. If she was unable to cope with the demands of the Army it was in her best interest and the best interests of the Army that she be separated. This was an administrative discharge, there was no Uniform of Military Justice (UCMJ) in this action. Upon the battalion commander’s approval, she would be separated from the military. 10. On 27 November 1996, the applicant’s commander notified the her action was being initiated to separate her from the Army under the provisions of chapter 11, Army Regulation (AR) 635-200 (Personnel Separations – Enlisted Personnel), due to ELS. The specific reason cited for the proposed action was the applicant was suffering from an adjustment disorder. She had no desire to meet the standards of the military. It would be in the best interest of the military and the individual concerned if she were separated immediately. She was advised of her rights. 11. On 27 November 1996, the applicant acknowledged notification, acknowledged she had been advised of her rights and provided an opportunity to consult with counsel and she declined. She also declined to submit statements in her own behalf and waived further counsel. 12. On 27 November 1996, the applicant’s commander recommended approval. The commander cited the specific factual reason(s) for separation were the applicant was unable to cope with the demanding lifestyle of the military. The commander believed it would be in the best interest of the military and the individual concerned if she were separated immediately. 13. On 27 November 1996, the appropriate authority approved the applicant's separation under the provisions of AR 635-200, chapter 11, due to ELS, with uncharacterized service. 14. On 12 December 1996, the applicant was discharged in accordance. Her DD Form 214 shows she was discharged in accordance with AR 635-200, chapter 11, due to Entry Level Separation, performance and conduct, with uncharacterized service. She completed 2 months and 6 days of net active service this period. She was assigned Sepation Code JGA and Reentry Code 3. 15. AR 635-200, chapter 11, in effect at the time, set policy and provided guidance for the separation of personnel because of unsatisfactory performance or conduct (or both) while in an ELS. 16. Her record is void of documentation showing she was treated for an injury or an illness that warranted entry into the Physical Disability Evaluation System (PDES). Additionally, there is no indication that she was issued a permanent physical profile or underwent a medical evaluation board (MEB) or a physical evaluation board (PEB). 17. An NGB Form 22, issued on 31 January 1997, shows she was discharged from Louisiana ARNG, under the provisions of National Guard Regulation 600-200, paragraph 8-26n, ELS and conduct, with uncharacterized service. 18. 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. 19. 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. 20. 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. 21. 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, an ABCMR denial (28 January 1998, AC96-10784A), 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 the Interactive Personnel Electronic Records Management System (iPERMS). The ARBA Medical Advisor made the following findings and recommendations: a. The applicant is applying to the ABCMR requesting an upgrade of her 12 December 1996 uncharacterized discharge, and , in essence, a referral to the Disability Evaluation System (DES). She states: “I would like my discharge to be corrected to medical retirement from under other than honorable conditions. I was in the military mental hospital 12/1996 when I became unfit to serve. I was sent home in 02/1997. I was discharged from the Army.” b. The Record of Proceedings details the applicant’s military service and the circumstances of the case. Her DD 214 for the period of Service under consideration shows the former Guard Soldier entered active duty for basic combat training on 7 October 1996 and was discharged 12 December 1996 under provisions provided in chapter 11 of AR 635-200, Personnel Separations – Enlisted Personnel (26 June 1996), for falling below entry level performance and conduct standards. c. Her Report of Separation and Record of Service (NGB Form 22) shows she entered the Army National Guard on 14 June 1996 and was discharged on 31 January 1997 from the Louisiana Army National Guard (LAARNG) under provisions provided in paragraph 8-26n of NGR 600-200, Enlisted Personnel Management (1 February 1990): Entry Level Status and Conduct. d. Her pre-entrance Report of Medical History and Report of Medical Examination show her to have been in good health without significant medical history or conditions. e. The applicant underwent a mental status evaluation on 13 November 1996 after which the provider wrote: “The soldier is a 20-year-old NG/AD {National Guard / Active Duty} single female currently in her 2nd week of BT {basic training}. The soldier was referred to CMHS {Community Mental Health Service} by her unit command for evaluation of behavior. The soldier stated that she has been having headaches and hearing voices inside her head that are telling her to hurt herself. The soldier stated that she has been hearing the voices since the age of 12. She stated that she cannot control them and she hears them every 10 minutes during the entire day. The soldier was seen by SPC R. in the ER on 25 Oct. 96 for taking 10 x 800mg Motrin to try and kill herself. The soldier stated that she plays like she is happy so people do not look at her like she is “crazy”. IMPRESSION: The soldier is showing some signs of Borderline Personality Disorder. The soldier appears to have recurrent thoughts of suicide that will hamper ability train and become a productive soldier. The soldier was seen by LTC(P) and has spent some time up on {Ward} 4C. The soldier does not appear to possess the necessary coping skills to become a productive soldier in the military. Recommend that the soldier be processed for an expeditious separation by ELS {entry level separation}.” f. On 25 November 1996, her company commander counseled her on his recommendation she be separated from the Army: “PVT {Applicant}, I am recommending you for an entry level separation (ELS) based on the recommendations of your chain of command and the Community of Mental Health and Services and my observations of your emotional and mental stability. Since you arrived, you have demonstrated psychological tendencies which are not conducive to productive military service. These problems have made you a training distraction for your Drill Sergeants and the other members of your platoon. You have attempted to hurt yourself and you give no indication of overcoming your adjustment problems with the Army. The military can be a very stressful and demanding environment. If you are unable to cope with the demands of the Army, then it is in your best interest and the best interests of the Army that you be separated from military service.” g. The applicant concurred with her commander’s counseling. h. On 27 November 1996, he informed her of his initiation of separation action under provisions in chapter 11 of AR 635-200: “Reasons for my proposed action are: PV1 {Applicant} is suffering from an adjustment disorder. She has no desire to the meet the standards of the military. It would be in the best interest of the military and the individual concerned if she were separated immediately.” i. His recommendation for an ELS separation was approved by the battalion commander on 27 November 1996. j. There is no evidence the applicant had a duty incurred medical condition which would have failed the medical retention standards of chapter 3 of AR 40-501, Standards of Medical Fitness, prior to his discharge. Thus, there was no cause for referral to the Disability Evaluation System. k. While is appears she may have had a mental health condition while on active duty, it is clear the condition existed prior to entrance into the Army. Even had a mental health condition been identified while she was on active duty, she would most likely have been separated under paragraph 5-11 of AR 635-200, Personnel Separations – Enlisted Personnel (17 September 1990): Separation of personnel who did not meet procurement medical fitness. l. This paragraph provides for the separation of enlisted Soldiers who within their first 6 months of active service are found to have a preexisting condition which does not meet the enlistment standard in chapter 2 of AR 40-501, Standards of Medical Fitness, but does meet the chapter 3 retention standard of the same regulation. The fourth criterion for this process is that the preexisting condition was not permanently service aggravated. m. Her characterization of service under either paragraph would have been “Uncharacterized.” An uncharacterized discharge is given to individuals who separate prior to completing 180 days of military service, or when the discharge action was initiated prior to 180 days of service. This type of discharge does not attempt to characterize service as good or bad. n. A 10 March 2021 VA benefits summary shows the applicant’s period of Service in the Army was 7 October – 12 December 1996 and the characterization of her Service as Honorable. o. A 4 January 2022 VA benefits summary shows the applicant’s period of Service in the Army was 7 October – 12 December 1996 and the characterization of her Service as “Other Than Honorable Conditions”. p. Both summaries appear to be in error but is an issue outside of the ABCMR’s authority to address. q. Review of her JLV records show she receives care at Veterans Hospital Administration (VHA) facilities as a service -connected Veteran, and has a single service-connected disability of Major Depressive Disorder (100%) with an originally effective and currently effective date of 8 March 2021. 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. r. It is the opinion of the Agency Medical Advisor that neither a discharge upgrade nor a referral of her case to the DES is warranted. BOARD DISCUSSION: The Board carefully considered the applicant’s request, supporting documents, evidence in the records, and published DoD guidance for liberal consideration of discharge upgrade requests. The Board considered the applicant's statement, the applicant's record of service, and the reason for separation. The evidence shows the applicant was separated due to entry level separation – performance and conduct, with uncharacterized service. She completed 2 months and 6 days of net active service this period. The Board reviewed and agreed with the medical advisor’s finding insufficient evidence to warrant a referral of the applicant’s record to the disability evaluation system for consideration of military medical separation. The applicant met retention standards at the time of discharge. Although she receives care at VA facility and has service-connection, the military’s disability system compensates an individual only for service incurred medical condition(s) which have been determined to disqualify him or her from further military service. The VA on the other hand has the role and 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. Based on a preponderance of evidence, the Board determined that the reason for separation the applicant received was not in error or unjust. 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, 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. On 25 August 2017, the Office of the Undersecretary of Defense for Personnel and Readiness issued clarifying guidance for the Secretary of Defense Directive to DRBs and BCM/NRs when considering requests by veterans for modification of their discharges due in whole or in part to: mental health conditions, including PTSD, traumatic brain injury, sexual assault, or sexual harassment. Boards are to give liberal consideration to veterans petitioning for discharge relief when the application for relief is based, in whole or in part, on those conditions or experiences. 3. On 25 July 2018, the Under Secretary of Defense for Personnel and Readiness issued guidance to Military Discharge Review Boards and Boards for Correction of Military/Naval Records (BCM/NRs) regarding equity, injustice, or clemency determinations. Clemency generally refers to relief specifically granted from a criminal sentence. BCM/NRs may grant clemency regardless of the court-martial forum. However, the guidance applies to more than clemency from a sentencing in a court- martial; it also applies to any other corrections, including changes in a discharge, which may be warranted on equity or relief from injustice grounds. This guidance does not mandate relief, but rather provides standards and principles to guide BCM/NRs in application of their equitable relief authority. In determining whether to grant relief on the basis of equity, injustice, or clemency grounds, BCM/NRs shall consider the prospect for rehabilitation, external evidence, sworn testimony, policy changes, relative severity of misconduct, mental and behavioral health conditions, official governmental acknowledgement that a relevant error or injustice was committed, and uniformity of punishment. Changes to the narrative reason for discharge and/or an upgraded character of service granted solely on equity, injustice, or clemency grounds normally should not result in separation pay, retroactive promotions, and payment of past medical expenses or similar benefits that might have been received if the original discharge had been for the revised reason or had the upgraded service characterization. 4. AR 635-200 (Personnel Separations – Enlisted Personnel) sets forth the basic authority for the separation of enlisted personnel. a. An honorable discharge is a separation with honor and entitles the recipient to benefits provided by law. The honorable characterization is appropriate when the quality of the member's service generally has met the standards of acceptable conduct and performance of duty for Army personnel or is otherwise so meritorious that any other characterization would be clearly inappropriate. b. A general discharge is a separation from the Army under honorable conditions. When authorized, it is issued to a Soldier whose military record is satisfactory but not sufficiently meritorious to warrant an honorable discharge. c. Chapter 11, provides for the separation of personnel because of unsatisfactory performance or conduct (or both) while in an entry-level status. When separation of a Soldier in entry-level status is warranted by unsatisfactory performance or minor disciplinary infractions (or both) as evidenced by inability, lack of reasonable effort, or failure to adapt to the military environment, he or she will normally be separated per this chapter. Service will be uncharacterized for ELS under the provisions of this chapter. This policy applies to Soldiers in the Regular Army, ARNG, and USAR who have completed no more than 180 days of continuous active duty or IADT or no more than 90 days of Phase II under a split or alternate training option. d. Section II (Terms) of the Glossary defines entry-level status for Regular Army Soldiers as the first 180 days of continuous active duty or the first 180 days of continuous active duty following a break of more than 92 days of active military service. For ARNG and USAR Soldiers, entry-level status begins upon enlistment in the ARNG or USAR. For Soldiers ordered to IADT for one continuous period, it terminates 180 days after beginning training. For Soldiers ordered to IADT for the split or alternate training option, it terminates 90 days after beginning Phase II of Advanced Individual Training. 5. 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. 6. AR 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. Soldiers are referred to the disability system when they no longer meet medical retention standards in accordance with Army Regulation 40-501, chapter 3, as evidenced in a medical evaluation board (MEB); when they receive a permanent physical profile rating of "3" or "4" in any functional capacity factor and are referred by a Military Occupational Specialty Medical Retention Board; and/or they are command- referred for a fitness-for-duty medical examination. b. The disability evaluation assessment process involves two distinct stages: the MEB and physical evaluation board (PEB). The purpose of the MEB is to determine whether the service member's injury or illness is severe enough to compromise his or 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 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 are either 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 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 medical impairment prevents reasonable performance of the duties required of the Soldier's office, grade, rank, or rating. d. 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. e. 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. 7. 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. 8. 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. 9. 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. 10. 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. //NOTHING FOLLOWS// ABCMR Record of Proceedings (cont) AR20220006983 1 ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 1