IN THE CASE OF: BOARD DATE: 30 August 2023 DOCKET NUMBER: AR20230001438 APPLICANT REQUESTS: reconsideration of his previous request for medical separation with a separation program designator (SPD) code of “JFR” (Physical disability without severance pay) vice “JEM”. APPLICANT'S SUPPORTING DOCUMENT(S) CONSIDERED BY THE BOARD: Reconsideration letter 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 AR20140015750 on 18 June 2015. 2. The applicant states he joined the Army in December 1977 to make it a career being a Military Police since he was already an Army Security Officer. Within the first two weeks of being at Fort McClellan, he had white spots appear on both arms (still there), and lumps pop out on both testicles. One might think that this might be of important medical care. NO! Army Captain Dr. flatly refused to see him. After watching him chasing nurses up and down the hallways of Noble Army Hospital with a coffee cup in his hand, the applicant finally got brave and asked an Army medical corpsman when he was going to be seen. He looked right at the applicant and stated that he was only trying to get out of duty and sent him back to his unit. Lack of medical! a. On 13 March 1978, he got knocked down from behind while running from a physical training formation to a marching formation. List of his injuries: injured right wrist, injured right elbow, injured right shoulder, a very large lump above right ear (headaches/blackouts), an injured cervical, an injured thoracic back, an injured lumbar, a very seriously injured sciatica nerve running down left leg to top of left foot causing hammer toes, and severe footdrop left foot, fractured right kneecap, and fractured bones off the bottom of his right femur behind his right knee. Dr. flatly refused his begging for PT (physical therapy). Also flatly refusing the request of a Lieutenant Colonel's request if he was going to prescribe PT to help the applicant recover from these above injuries. At no time was an x-ray ever done on any part of his body. b. Injury two: his company was using a rope to swing across a ditch of water to land up in a perch. He landed on his head on a slab of concrete. He was completely knocked out. NO medical care of any kind was administered. A recruit was ordered to pick him up under each arm and carry him/drag him along. c. Injury three: he was at the live-fire range being instructed on how to take an enemy machinegun emplacement commonly called a pillbox. He was ordered up the left side while shooting his rifle. Fresh cut trees were cut off sticking up out of the ground at differing heights. He smashed his left knee on one of those tree stumps. He had to be carried of the live fire range by two recruits. His left knee swollen up very large immediately. He could not walk on it without falling on his face. Army Captain flatly refused all medical care for all the described injuries. He could not continue in basic training while at Fort McClellan. d. The Veteran's Affairs Administration has granted him a 100% disability rating. However, it was never his intent on leaving the military. After he got out, he found medical care finally! He is asking that his DD Form 214 (Report of Separation) be changed to a medical discharge because of what happened to him while at Fort McClellan in 1978. 3. The applicant enlisted in the Regular Army on 28 February 1978. 4. He was issued a temporary limited duty profile on 13 March 1978 that expired on 13 April 1978. This profile stated he suffered a dislocation with spontaneous relocation of his right shoulder. He was placed on limited duty for a period of 4 weeks or 30 days. He was not permitted to handle heavy materials including weapons; he was not permitted to do any overhead lifting, push-ups, or sit-ups; and he was required to wear a sling for 4 weeks. 5. On 28 April 1978, he was seen at the Community Mental Health Activity (CMHA) based on a referral from his commander for depression, constant worrying, being a loner, family problems, difficulty with peers, and refusal to put forth effort. After interviewing the applicant, CMHA recommended that he be administratively separated from the military and stated he reported depression and anxiety accompanying somatic symptoms. He appeared overly reactive and responsive to environmental pressures, impulsive, explosive, and had low tolerance for frustration. His problems appeared chronic in nature. Further efforts at rehabilitation were unlikely to be productive. He was cleared for administrative action deemed appropriate by his chain of command. 6. He was issued a temporary limited duty profile on 2 May 1978 that expired on 12 May 1978, due to back problem. 7. The applicant's record contains a memorandum from the chaplain to the applicant's company commander, dated 5 May 1978, wherein the chaplain informed his commander: a. He had counseled the applicant regarding a morale problem. b. The applicant began training the first week of March 1978 and incurred an injury after about the second week of training, which placed him on a profile for about a month. During this period the applicant was unable to train. The applicant requested to go home to see his wife, who was pregnant, and his request was denied. c. The applicant had been recycled and was experiencing personal problems of a deeply religious nature. The applicant had lost all motivation for the military and was extremely depressed due to his wife's miscarriage two weeks earlier. d. He did not believe the applicant would become a very productive Soldier with his present attitude. The applicant felt the Army had done him an injustice and the only correction he was willing to accept was to be released from active duty. The Chaplain recommended the applicant be discharge from active military service. 8. His record contains a Training and Doctrine Command Form 871-R (Trainee Discharge Program (TDP) Counseling), dated 9 May 1978, which shows: a. On 27 April 1978, during a counseling session with his drill sergeant, the applicant indicated that "he wanted out of the Army." He had been in training since the first part of March 1978 and missed his wife. He was very depressed and had financial problems. He was counseled in reference to his duty performance, which was considered marginal. He was advised the fastest way to see his wife without an emergency was to complete training. A list of his debt also revealed that a total monthly payment was only $151, which was not considered critical. The applicant was advised that his drill sergeant could not recommend a discharge, because he could complete the training with a little motivation. b. On 5 May 1978, during a counseling session with his drill sergeant, his drill sergeant stated the applicant had continued to resist all efforts of rehabilitation since being assigned. He had not taken a diagnostic Army Physical Fitness Test nor participated in physical training or other training limited by a profile for a total of six weeks. His participation in training, not prohibited by profile reflected a negative attitude, lack of motivation, and a complete unwillingness to put fourth any effort whatsoever. It was the Drill Sergeant's opinion that the applicant lacked the ability to adjust to military life and he would not be able to meet the minimum physical requirements to complete basic training. He recommended the applicant be discharged from service as his retention was considered not in the best interest of the Army. c. His first sergeant (1SG) stated, on 9 May 1978, the applicant had consistently resisted all efforts of cadre to help rehabilitate him for training to be successfully completed. His immaturity, coupled with his substandard physical condition made it highly unlikely that he could complete training. The applicant did not display the traits desired in a Soldier of today's Army and he had not demonstrated potential for personal improvement. An overall evaluation of the individual revealed the applicant was a liability to the Army and would continue to be a problem if retrained. His 1SG recommended that he be immediately discharged from service. d. On 9 May 1978, the applicant's company commander stated the applicant had failed to respond to counseling by the cadre, chaplain, and the mental hygiene staff. He consistently displayed a negative attitude, lack of motivation, and self-discipline that was required to successfully complete training. He displayed a complete disregard for others and appeared to be in a constant state of depression. Consequently, his reactions were unpredictable as indicated by a recent incident where he urinated in the presence of a female trainee. All efforts of rehabilitation had failed, and further efforts were considered unreasonable. He strongly concurred with the chaplain and mental hygiene staff's recommendation that the applicant be eliminated from service under the TDP. 9. On 9 May 1978, his company commander-initiated action to discharge him from the U.S. Army under the provisions (UP) of Army Regulation (AR) 635-200 (Personnel Separations-Enlisted Personnel), paragraph 5-33. The specific reason for the proposed action was the applicant’s inability to adjust to the stress of military training coupled with his demonstrated negative attitude marks him as a liability the Army can ill afford. His moral courage and integrity are questionable in that he was untruthful when questioned about an incident witnessed by numerous other trainees. His total disregard for others, lack of motivation, and demonstrated resistance to rehabilitation efforts make it highly unlikely that he would ever complete military training and become a productive soldier. His commander informed him of his rights and told him he must complete the attached acknowledgement of notification and return it immediately. However, his record does not contain the acknowledgement. 10. On 9 May 1978, his commander recommended that he be eliminated from the service under the trainee discharge program UP of AR 635-200, paragraph 5-33. 11. On 15 May 1978, his intermediate commander recommended that he be discharged as recommended by his immediate commander. 12. On 17 May 1978, the separation authority approved separation UP of AR 635-200, paragraph 5-33, and furnished an Honorable Discharge Certificate. 13. On 23 May 1978, he was honorably discharged UP of AR 635-200, paragraph 5-33, trainee discharge program for marginal or nonproductive performance. His DD Form 214 shows he completed 2 months and 26 days net active service this period. 14. On 18 June 2015, in ABCMR Docket Number AR20140015750, the Board considered his application but determined that after reviewing the application and all supporting documents, that relief was not warranted. The Board denied his request. 15. His record lacks any documentation that shows his medical conditions were of such severity that they warranted referral into the Army Physical Disability Evaluation System. 16. 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. 17. 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. 18. Title 38, CFR, Part IV is the VA’s schedule for rating disabilities. The DVA awards disability ratings to veterans for service-connected conditions, including those conditions detected after discharge. As a result, the DVA, 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 DVA can evaluate a veteran throughout his or her lifetime, adjusting the percentage of disability based upon that agency's examinations and findings. 19. MEDICAL REVIEW: a. The Army Review Boards Agency (ARBA) Medical Advisor was asked to review this case. Documentation reviewed included the applicant’s ABCMR application and accompanying documentation, the military electronic medical record (EMR) (AHLTA and/or MHS Genesis), the VA electronic medical record (JLV), the electronic Physical Evaluation Board (ePEB), the Medical Electronic Data Care History and Readiness Tracking (MEDCHART) application, and/or the Interactive Personnel Electronic Records Management System (iPERMS). The ARBA Medical Advisor made the following findings and recommendations: b. The applicant is again applying to the ABCMR requesting, in essence, a referral to the Disability Evaluation System (DES). He states he sustained multiple injuries while in the Army, these injuries were not treated, and he now has a 100% service-connected disability rating from the VA. c. The Record of Proceedings details the applicant’s military service and the circumstances of the case. His DD 214 shows he entered the Regular Army on 28 February 1978 and was honorably discharged on 23 May 1978 under provisions provided in paragraph 5-33a of AR 635-200, Personnel Separations – Enlisted Personnel (1 March 1978): Trainee Discharge Program (TDP). His military separation code of JEM denotes “Army Trainee Discharge.” Paragraph 5-33a of AR 635-200: “5-33 The Trainee Discharge Program (TDP). This program provides that commanders may expeditiously separate members who lack the necessary motivation, discipline, ability, or aptitude to become a productive soldier … d. The applicant’s pre-entrance Report of Medical History shows the applicant reported he was in “Excellent health,” was not taking any medications, and had no significant medical history. The provider documented a normal examination on the accompanying Report of Medical Examination. e. On 15 March 1978, the applicant was placed on a temporary duty limiting upper extremity physical profile for “Dislocation with Spontaneous Relocation.” Neither the extremity nor the affected joint is identified. The applicant was placed on a temporary duty limiting physical profile for “Back Problem” on 2 May 1978. f. The applicant underwent a unit requested Community Mental Health Evaluation on 2 May 1978. The provider opined: “Recommend service member be admiratively separated from service. He reports depression and anxiety as accompanying somatic symptoms. He appears overly reactive and [illegible] to environmental pressures, impulsive, explosive, and have a limited tolerance for frustration. Service member’s problems appear chronic in nature. Further efforts toward rehabilitation are unlikely to be productive. Service member is cleared for administrative action deemed appropriated by command.” g. After the Chaplain counseled and evaluated the applicant on 5 May 1978, he recommended he “be discharged for active-duty military: “Private [Applicant] informed me that he came to Ft. McClellan the first week in March. He began training in Company F, 12th MP Battalion (OSUT) [one station unit training]. After about 2 weeks of training, he incurred an injury which placed him on profile for about a month. During this time period, Private [Applicant] was unable to take training. He requested to go home to see his wife, who was pregnant, and his request was denied. Private [Applicant] was recycled to A-10 where he is now experiencing personal problems of a deep religious nature. He has lost all motivation for the military and is extremely depressed due to his wife's miscarriage two weeks ago. I do not believe that Private [Applicant] will become a very productive soldier with his present attitude. He feels the Army has done him an injustice and the only correction which he is willing to foresee is to be released.” h. The applicant received his company commander’s TDP counseling on 9 May 1978: “SM [service member has failed to respond to counseling by cadre, Chaplain, and Mental Hygiene. He consistently displays a negative attitude, lack of motivation, and self-discipline required in order to successfully complete training. SM displays a complete disregard for others and appears to be in a constant state of depression. Consequently, his reactions are unpredictable as indicated by the recent incident where he urinated in the presence of a female trainee. All efforts of rehabilitation have failed and further efforts are considered unreasonable. I strongly concur with the recommendation of the Chaplain and Mental Hygiene for elimination of SM under TDP.” i. The brigade commander approved the recommended discharge under the TDP on 17 May 1978. j. There is no evidence the applicant had a service incurred permanent medical condition which would have failed the medical retention standards of chapter 3, AR 40- 501 prior to his discharge. Thus, there was no cause for referral to the Disability Evaluation System. Furthermore, there is no evidence that any medical condition prevented the applicant from being able to reasonably perform the duties of his office, grade, rank, or rating prior to his discharge. k. Review of his records in JLV shows he has been awarded several VA service- connected disability ratings, including two for his right upper extremity in 1997, one for his back in 2010, and one for dysthymic disorder in 2013. However, the DES only compensates an individual 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. l. It is the opinion of the ARBA Medical Advisor that a referral of this case to the Disability Evaluation System is not warranted. BOARD DISCUSSION: After reviewing the application, all supporting documents, and the evidence found within the military record, the Board found that relief was not warranted. The Board carefully considered the applicant's record of service, documents submitted in support of the petition and executed a comprehensive and standard review based on law, policy and regulation. Upon review of the applicant’s petition, available military records and the medical review, the Board concurred with the advising official finding Advisor that a referral of this case to the Disability Evaluation System is not warranted. The Board noted, based on the medical opine there is no evidence the Board found 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 to amend the decision of the ABCMR set forth in Docket Number AR20140015750 on 18 June 2015. Based on the preponderance of evidence and the medical opine, relief was denied. BOARD VOTE: Mbr 1 Mbr 2 Mbr 3 : : : GRANT FULL RELIEF : : : GRANT PARTIAL RELIEF : : : GRANT FORMAL HEARING :X :X :X DENY APPLICATION BOARD DETERMINATION/RECOMMENDATION: The Board found 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 to amend the decision of the ABCMR set forth in Docket Number AR20140015750 on 18 June 2015. 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. 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. 2. 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. 3. 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 a Medical Evaluation Board (MEB); when they receive a permanent medical profile rating of 3 or 4 in any factor and are referred by an Military Occupational Specialty (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 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/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. 4. Army Regulation (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. 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. c. The percentage assigned to a medical defect or condition is the disability rating. A rating is not assigned until the PEB determines the Soldier is physically unfit for duty. Ratings are assigned from the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Schedule for Rating Disabilities (VASRD). The fact that a Soldier has a condition listed in the VASRD does not equate to a finding of physical unfitness. An unfitting, or ratable condition, is one which renders the Soldier unable to perform the duties of their office, grade, rank, or rating in such a way as to reasonably fulfill the purpose of their employment on active duty. There is no legal requirement in arriving at the rated degree of incapacity to rate a physical condition which is not in itself considered disqualifying for military service when a Soldier is found unfit because of another condition that is disqualifying. 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. 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. AR 635-200, chapter 5 (Separation for Convenience of the Government), in effect at the time, set forth the conditions under which enlisted personnel may be discharged, released from active duty or active duty for training, or released from military control, for the convenience of the Government with service characterized as honorable or under honorable conditions, as appropriate. a. Section X (Involuntary Separation), paragraph 5-29 states Title 10, U.S. Code (USC), Section 1169 provides that enlisted personnel may be discharged or released from active duty, as appropriate under the provisions paragraph 5-33, prior to the expiration of their terms of service or periods for which ordered to active duty. b. Paragraph 5-33 provides that commanders may expeditiously separate members who lack the necessary motivation, discipline, ability, or aptitude to become a productive soldier when these individuals: (1) were voluntarily enlisted in the RA, Army National Guard or U.S. Army Reserve. (2) were in basic combat training or BT or in MOS training in AIT, a service school or on the job training prior to the award of the MOS for which being trained and will have completed no more than 179 days active duty or initial active duty for training, on current enlistment by the date of separation. (3) had demonstrated that they are not qualified for retention because they cannot or will not adapt socially or emotionally to military life; cannot meet the minimum standards prescribed for successful completion of training because of lack of aptitude, ability, motivation or self-discipline; have demonstrated character and behavior characteristics not compatible with satisfactory continued service; and/or do not meet enlisted standards by reason of disqualifying drug use; and/or (4) had failed to respond to counseling. Members separated under his program were to be awarded an honorable character of service. 7. AR 635-5-1 (Personnel Separations - Separation Program Designators (SPD)), in effect at the time, provided that: a. The SPD code of "JEM" is the correct SPD code for separations in accordance with Army Regulation 635-200, paragraph 5-33, for marginal or nonproductive performance. b. The SPD code of "JFR" is the correct SPD code for separations in accordance with Army Regulation 635-40, paragraph 4-19e (4). 8. Title 38 U.S. Code 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 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) AR20230001438 1 ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 1