IN THE CASE OF: BOARD DATE: 26 September 2023 DOCKET NUMBER: AR20230001862 APPLICANT REQUESTS: • reconsideration of is prior request for upgrade of his under other than honorable conditions discharge to honorable, and/or • in effect, amendment of his under other than honorable conditions discharge in lieu of trial by court-martial to honorable physical disability discharge • personal appearance before the Board APPLICANT'S SUPPORTING DOCUMENT(S) CONSIDERED BY THE BOARD: • DD Form 149 (Application for Correction of Military Record) • self-authored statement • Dd Form 214 (Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty) • a letter signed by licensed clinical social workers (LCSW) • a letter signed by a licensed mental health clinician (LMHC) • letter from a board certified psychiatrist • three letters of support 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 AR20150016340 on 28 February 2017. 2. The applicant states: a. He is requesting a discharge upgrade from under other than honorable conditions to honorable disability discharge due to post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD). Please review the medical documentation form this therapists and psychiatrist indicating his diagnosis of PTSD/mental health issues, which were the catalyst of the crisis that led to his troubles in the Army. His prior honorable service, successful treatment, and character references support a reconsideration of his discharge to honorable. b. He enlisted in the Army National Guard (ARNG) in 1987 and was honorably discharged. In 1991, he decided to make the military a career and enlisted in the Regular Army. He was born with a significant leg length discrepancy and was given a waiver by the military to enlist in the Army. c. His Military Occupational Specialty (MOS) was 13B (Cannon Crew Member). He deployed to the demilitarized zone at Camp Pelham. During that time, he was a model Soldier, with a top-secret clearance. He acquired a Drivers Badge for driving 25,000 miles without incident, completed the Combat Lifesavers Course, and was quickly promoted from private second class (PV2) to private first class (PFC). Things were looking great and he was doing what he loved while following in the footsteps of his mother and father by serving his country in the U.S. Army. d. in 1992, he was injured while carrying a round of ammunition during a field training exercise. He hurt his back, shoulder, and neck during this incident. He could not longer do the required physical training, walk, stand for longer periods of time and perform his duties. He was placed on a permanent profile with a rating of “4” (P4). At Camp Pelham, the doctors viewed images of his spine and his leg shortage and stated he should have never been permitted to enlist with such a significant leg shortage and curved spine. Being put on a P4 profile shattered his plans to continue in the field that he loved. He could not think clearly and things began to spiral out of control. He fell into a deep depression, had bipolar episodes, and a mental breakdown. He got into altercations and was acting out. This led him to self-medicate and abuse alcohol to ease his pain and depression. e. The military reprimanded him for his behavior and episodes. They were more focused on his inability to perform his duties. At that time, they did not address his manic bipolar depression and behavior. He was not properly diagnosed and not given any mental health assistance. Having bipolar manic-depressive episodes and mental health issues led him to make irrational decisions that led to an under other than honorable conditions discharge. Had he been properly diagnosed and treated instead of being reprimanded it is likely that he would not have received an under other than honorable conditions discharge. f. Upon his Army separation, his mental health issues further spiraled with continued mental depression. He continued to self-medicate and his mental health declined for several years. In his opinion, it was the negligence of the military that permitted him to enlist without a waiver for a condition that became exacerbated after the injury. Up until that point, his service was honorable, as reflected in his previous honorable discharge. Had the military not given him a waiver, he would have pursued better opportunities. As a result of the injury and the under other than honorable conditions discharge, he had limited opportunities. As a result of his conditions that became worse in the military, he was unable to gain longstanding employment. g. He is currently disabled by the State of New York and his current diagnoses are bipolar disorder, social phobia, anxiety, PTSD, radiculopathy, cervical region, polyneuropathy, radiculopathy, lumbar region, cervicalgia, and pain in the right shoulder. He is currently being treated with medication prescribed by his psychiatrist and his doctors. For about 20years he has been communicating with the military, seeking his medical records to address the unfavorable discharge that was more likely done based on a misdiagnosis. After years of mental and physical disabilities and after finally being properly diagnosed and medicated, he is able to live a sober life. However, since his separation, he suffered physical and mental illness for many years and it is likely that his quality of life would have been a lot better had he received the proper attention while he was enlisted. 3. The applicant’s National Guard Bureau (NGB) Form 22 (Report of Separation and Record of Service) shows the following: • he enlisted in the Army National Guard (ARNG) on 27 August 1987 • he was awarded the MOS 13B • he received a general, under honorable conditions discharge on 1 May 1989 • he was credited with 1 year, 8 months, and 5 days net service this period 4. The applicant’s medical examination completed at the time of his enlistment is not in his available records for review. 5. The applicant’s DA Form 2-1 (Personnel Qualification Record – Part II) shows the following: • he enlisted in the Regular Army on 1 May 1991,in the rank/grade of PV2/ E-2 • he was promoted in rank/grade from PV2 to PFC on 1 October 1991 • he served in Korea from 13 May 1991 through 24 June 1992 • he left Korea enroute to Fort Riley, KS, on 26 June 1992, and was listed as absent without leave (AWOL) from the 1st Adjutant General (AG) replacement Company at Fort Riley, KS, prior to reporting to his gaining permanent duty station 6. Multiple DA Forms 4187 (Personnel Action) show the following duty status changes pertaining to the applicant: • from ordinary leave to AWOL on 11 July 1992 • from AWOL to present for duty (PDY) on 2 August 1992 • from PDY to AWOL on 1 March 1993 • from AWOL to PDY on 3 March 1993 • from PDY to AWOL on 8 March 1993 • from AWOL to dropped from the rolls (DFR) on 7 April 1993 7. A DD Form 553 (Deserter/Absentee Wanted by the Armed Forces) shows that an investigation shows the applicant went AWOL from his unit on 8 March 1993 with intent to remain away permanently and did remain continuously absent until 8 April 1993. He was considered an escape risk based on being a previous absentee. 8. A DD Form 458 (Charge Sheet) shows the applicant was charged on 15 April 1993, with absenting himself without authority from his unit on 8 March 1993 and remaining absent until an undetermined date. 9. A DA Form 4384 (Commander’s Report of Inquiry/Unauthorized Absence), dated 15 May 1993, shows the following: a. The applicant’s initial date of unauthorized absence this period was 8 March 1993. b. Listed as possible contributing factors causing AWOL are indebtedness, trouble with superiors, awaiting trial by court-martial. c. The remarks show the applicant’s pending court-martial was for previous AWOL incidents, 14 December 1992 through 28 December 1991; 3 January 1993 through 4 January 1993; 1 March 1993 through 3 March 1993; missing movement on 1 February 1993, and issuance of bad checks/failure to pay just debts. d. He received Field Grade punishment under Article 15 of the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ) from AWOL from 20 July 1992 through 10 August 1992. e. The applicant received a court summons for 20 March 1993 related to writing bad checks. 10. An additional DA Form 4187 shows the applicant’s duty status again changed from DFR to attached/PDY on 30 August 1993, when he surrendered to civilian authorities at Rivera Beach, FL, on 30 August 1993 and returned to military control on the same date. 11. A second DA form 458 shows on 10 September 1993, the applicant was charged with the following: • absenting himself from his unit without authority from 1 March 1993 through 3 March 1993 • absenting himself from his unit without authority from 8 March 1993 through 30 August 1993 12. On 10 September 1993, the applicant voluntarily requested discharge for the good of the service under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200 (Personnel Separations – Enlisted Personnel), chapter 10, based on charges preferred against him under the UCMJ which authorize the imposition of a bad conduct or dishonorable discharge. He acknowledged having been afforded the opportunity to consult with counsel. He acknowledged understanding he may be discharge under other than honorable conditions and that he may expect to encounter substantial prejudice in civilian life. He was advised of his right to submit statements in his own behalf, but declined to submit statements with his request. He indicated he did not desire a physical evaluation prior to separation. 13. On 5 October 1993, the applicant’s immediate commander recommended approval of the applicant’s request for discharge in lieu of trial by court-martial under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 10, with an under other than honorable conditions discharge. The applicant’s conduct rendered him triable by court-martial under circumstances which could lead to a bad conduct or dishonorable discharge. Based on the applicant’s previous record, punishment could be expected to have a minimal rehabilitative effect and he believed discharged to be in the best interest of all concerned. 14. On 5 October 1993, the applicant’s battalion commander recommended approval of the applicant’s request for discharge in lieu of trial by court-martial under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 10, with an under other than honorable conditions discharge. 15. On 19 October 1993,, the approval authority directed the applicant’s discharge under other than honorable conditions in lieu of trial by court-martial, under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 10, and his reduction in rank/grade to private/E-1. 16. The applicant’s DD Form 214 shows he was discharged under other than honorable conditions on 29 November 1993, under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 10, in lieu of trial by court-martial. He was credited with 2 years, and 14 days of net active service, with lost time from 11 July 1992 through 1 August 1992, 1 March 1993 through 2 March 1993, and 8 March 1993 through 29 August 1993. It also shows he was authorized the Driver and Mechanic Badge and successfully completed the Combat Lifesavers Course in November 1991. 17. The applicant previously applied to the Army Discharge Review Board (ADRB) requesting discharge upgrade and/or change to his reason for discharge. An ADRB memorandum, dated 17 August 2006, informed him that the ADRB denied his request, determining he had been properly and equitable discharged. 18. The applicant subsequently applied to the ABCMR in September 2015, requesting upgrade of his under other than honorable conditions discharge based on having learned from the mistakes he made when he was young and immature and that he had become a better man, turning his life around. On 28 February 2017, the Board denied the applicant’s request, determining the evidence presented did not demonstrate the existence of a probable error or injustice and the overall merits of his case were insufficient as a basis for correction of his records. 19. A letter from Mr. H____ A____, LCSW and Ms. B____ K____, dated 25 August 2022, shows the applicant has been diagnosed with bipolar disorder, unspecified, PTSD, and social phobia, unspecified. He has been attending weekly psychotherapy sessions consistently since 26 May 2022. 20. A letter from Ms. D____ L____, LMHC, dated 3 October 2022, shows that during the year she has been counseling the applicant , he has been suffering from anxiety and depression, which his time in the military may have contributed to. The applicant is suffering from PTSD as well, which again may be as a result of his military service. Their counseling sessions are still ongoing. 21. A letter from Dr. R____ M____, board certified psychiatrist, dated 24 October 2022, shows the applicant has been attending the Pesach Tikvah Family Services Center since 26 April 2022. He has engaged in weekly psychotherapy sessions as well as monthly psychiatric appointments since his admission to Pesach Tikvah. He is currently being treated for bipolar II disorder as well as PTSD. Unfortunately, the applicant’s Army medical records could not be found, therefore this letter is based upon his current reports, a psychiatric evaluation and the current clinical judgment of his therapist. Though serving in the military would not cause a bipolar II disorder, it can exacerbate the symptoms if it is not adequately treated in a timely fashion. The applicant claims he did not receive treatment to address his mental health issues. With regard to PTSD, this is specifically precipitated by a life threatening episode, which he did experience in the miliary. The applicant continues to report symptoms of a bipolar II disorder as well as PTSD, that impact his life until this day. 22. The applicant provided three additional letters of support, from his pastor and two friends he has known since his teenage years. They attest to the applicant’s intelligence, devotion to God and his church as a bible study teacher, his dedication to his sons, and his honorable character. 23. MEDICAL REVIEW: a. The Army Review Boards Agency (ARBA) Medical Advisor reviewed the supporting documents, the Record of Proceedings (ROP), and the applicant's available records in the Interactive Personnel Electronic Records Management System (iPERMS), the Health Artifacts Image Management Solutions (HAIMS) and the VA's Joint Legacy Viewer (JLV). The applicant requests an upgrade from ‘Under Other Than Honorable Conditions’ to ‘Honorable’ and indicated that PTSD is related to his request. He also requests disability. b. The applicant’s military record was summarized in the ABCMR ROP. Of note, the applicant entered the Regular Army 01May1991. His MOS was 13B10 Cannon Crewmember. He deployed in Korea from 13May1991 through 24June1992 (in the DMZ at Camp Pelham). The ABCMR listed multiple instances of his being AWOL from 1992 (starting when he was returning CONUS) until 1993. He was discharged 29Nov1993 under provisions of AR 635-200, chapter 10 in lieu of trial by court-martial. The charges included instances of being AWOL (14Dec1992 to 28Dec1991; 03Jan1993 to 04Jan1993; 01Mar1993 to 03Mar1993); missing a movement (01Feb1993), and issuance of bad checks/failure to pay just debts. One bad check was written 20Mar1993. His service was characterized as Under Other Than Honorable Conditions. c. The applicant stated that he injured his back, shoulder, and neck in 1992 while carrying a round of ammunition during a field training exercise. He stated that he was placed on a P4 profile which led to depression, acting out, and self-medicating and abusing alcohol. He also stated that he had a leg length discrepancy and spinal curvature for which he signed a waiver for entry and that this condition was worsened by his in-service injury. There were no in-service medical records available for review for the back, neck, or shoulder. There were no records available for review concerning the leg length discrepancy or waiver for such. JLV search did not yield any pertinent information concerning these issues. d. A psychiatrist from the Pesach Tikvah/Door of Hope in NY indicated the applicant was in treatment for the following diagnoses: Bipolar II Disorder and PTSD. They wrote that at age 20 (while in service) the applicant began feeling more irritable and hypersexual. He spent funds he did not have, and he described having flight of ideas and insomnia. The psychiatrist endorsed that these symptoms were the result of a hypomanic phase of the Bipolar II Disorder. The applicant also described frequent flashbacks of his experiences, sometimes life threatening, in the Korean Demilitarized Zone, an exaggerated startle response, having a sense of a foreshortened future, feeling a sense of detachment from others, hypervigilance, and avoidance of situations that remind him of his military service, consistent with PTSD. That notwithstanding, while in the military, command did not note any aberrant or psychotic behavior: “There does not appear to be any reasonable ground to believe that the individual is, or was, at the time of his misconduct, mentally defective, deranged or abnormal”. Of note, the applicant did not report suicide ideation, suicide attempts or psychiatric hospitalizations while in service. e. JLV search revealed that the applicant is not service connected for any disabilities, likely due to the characterization of his service. The applicant was diagnosed with PTSD with onset as a result of military experiences in the Korean Demilitarized Zone. Per guidance found in 03Sep2014 Secretary of Defense Liberal Guidance Memorandum and the 25Aug2017 Clarifying Guidance, the applicant’s PTSD condition is mitigating for the AWOL offenses. With regard to Liberal Consideration, in the ARBA Reviewer’s opinion, the applicant’s writing of bad checks could be the result of overspending during spending sprees as a consequence of his emerging Bipolar II Disorder (hypomanic phase) condition. f. The Board may consider discharge upgrade to ‘Under Honorable Conditions (General)’ or to ‘Honorable’ with narrative reason for discharge changed to ‘Secretarial Authority’. Referral for medical discharge processing for consideration for disability compensation is not warranted as evidence is insufficient to support that the applicant had a condition which failed medical retention standards of AR 40-501 chapter 3. Kurta Questions (1) Did the applicant have a condition or experience that may excuse or mitigate the discharge? Yes. The AWOL instances (all were noted to occur after he deployed) are attributable to the PTSD condition. The bad check(s) are attributable to the Bipolar II Disorder. (2) Did the condition exist, or did the experience occur during military service? Yes. PTSD was incurred while in service. Bipolar II Disorder, likely existed during service. (3) Does the condition or experience actually excuse or mitigate the discharge? Partially. The AWOL offences are completely mitigated by the PTSD condition. However, although the applicant may have been writing bad checks during spending sprees which could be attributable to the Bipolar II Disorder, writing a bad check is fraudulent and is not mitigated. The applicant was still capable of knowing wrong from right and adhering to right. BOARD DISCUSSION: 1. The Board determined 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. 2. After reviewing the application, all supporting documents, and the evidence found within the applicant’s military records, the Board found that relief was partially warranted. 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, the frequency and nature of the applicant's misconduct and the reason for separation. a. The applicant was charged with commission of an offense (AWOL) punishable under the UCMJ with a punitive discharge. After being charged, he consulted with counsel and requested discharge under the provisions of AR 635-200, Chapter 10. Such discharges are voluntary requests for discharge in lieu of trial by court-martial and result in an under other than honorable conditions character of service. The Board considered the medical records, any VA documents provided by the applicant and the review and conclusions of the advising official. The Board concurred with the medical advisory opinion finding some evidence, albeit minimal, of in-service mitigating factors to overcome the misconduct. Based on a preponderance of evidence, the Board determined that the applicant’s service clearly did not rise to the level required for an honorable characterization of service; however, a general discharge is appropriate under published DoD guidance for liberal consideration of discharge upgrade requests. b. As for the disability separation, the Board concurred with the medical advisor’s finding that referral for medical discharge processing for consideration for disability compensation is not warranted as evidence is insufficient to support that the applicant had a condition which failed medical retention standards of AR 40-501 chapter 3, and/or necessitated his entry into the disability system. BOARD VOTE: Mbr 1 Mbr 2 Mbr 3 : : : GRANT FULL RELIEF xx: xx: xx: GRANT PARTIAL RELIEF : : : GRANT FORMAL HEARING : : : DENY APPLICATION BOARD DETERMINATION/RECOMMENDATION: 1. The Board determined the evidence presented is sufficient to warrant partial amendment of the ABCMR's decision in Docket Number AR20150016340 on 28 February 2017. As a result, the Board recommends that all Department of the Army records of the individual concerned be corrected by reissuing him a DD Form 214 for the period ending 29 November 1993 showing: • Character of Service Under Honorable Conditions, General. • Separation Authority: No Change • Separation Code: No Change • Reentry Code: No Change • Narrative Reason for Separation: No Change 2. The Board further determined the evidence presented is insufficient to warrant a portion of the requested relief. As a result, the Board recommends denial of so much of the application that pertains to upgrading the characterization of his discharge to fully honorable or to disability separation 9/26/2023 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. 3. Army Regulation 635-200 (Personnel Separations – Enlisted Personnel) sets forth the basic authority for the separation of enlisted personnel. a. Chapter 10 provides that a member who had committed an offense or offenses for which the authorized sentence included a punitive discharge could submit a request for discharge for the good of the service in lieu of trial by court-martial. The request could be submitted at any time after charges were preferred. Although an honorable or general discharge could be directed, an Undesirable Discharge Certificate would normally be furnished to an individual who was discharged for the good of the service. b. 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. c. 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. d. A discharge under other than honorable conditions (UOTHC) is an administrative separation from the service under conditions other than honorable. It may be issued for misconduct, fraudulent entry, security reasons, or in lieu of trial by court martial. When a Soldier is discharged UOTHC, the separation authority will direct an immediate reduction to the lowest enlisted grade. 4. Title 10, U.S. Code, chapter 61, provides the Secretaries of the Military Departments with authority to retire or discharge a member if they find the member unfit to perform military duties because of physical disability. The U.S. Army Physical Disability Agency is responsible for administering the Army physical disability evaluation system and executes Secretary of the Army decision-making authority as directed by Congress in chapter 61 and in accordance with DOD Directive 1332.18 and Army Regulation 635-40 (Physical Evaluation for Retention, Retirement, or Separation). a. Soldiers are referred to the disability system when they no longer meet medical retention standards in accordance with Army Regulation 40-501 (Standards of Medical Fitness), chapter 3, as evidenced in an MEB; when they receive a permanent medical profile rating of 3 or 4 in any factor and are referred by an MOS Medical Retention Board; and/or they are command-referred for a fitness-for-duty medical examination. b. The disability evaluation assessment process involves two distinct stages: the MEB and PEB. The purpose of the MEB is to determine whether the service member's injury or illness is severe enough to compromise his/her ability to return to full duty based on the job specialty designation of the branch of service. A PEB is an administrative body possessing the authority to determine whether or not a service member is fit for duty. A designation of "unfit for duty" is required before an individual can be separated from the military because of an injury or medical condition. Service members who are determined to be unfit for duty due to disability either are separated from the military or are permanently retired, depending on the severity of the disability and length of military service. Individuals who are "separated" receive a one-time severance payment, while veterans who retire based upon disability receive monthly military retired pay and have access to all other benefits afforded to military retirees. c. The mere presence of a medical impairment does not in and of itself justify a finding of unfitness. In each case, it is necessary to compare the nature and degree of physical disability present with the requirements of the duties the Soldier may reasonably be expected to perform because of his or her office, grade, rank, or rating. Reasonable performance of the preponderance of duties will invariably result in a finding of fitness for continued duty. A Soldier is physically unfit when a medical impairment prevents reasonable performance of the duties required of the Soldier's office, grade, rank, or rating. 5. Army Regulation 635-40 establishes the Army Disability Evaluation System and sets forth policies, responsibilities, and procedures that apply in determining whether a Soldier is unfit because of physical disability to reasonably perform the duties of his office, grade, rank, or rating. Only the unfitting conditions or defects and those which contribute to unfitness will be considered in arriving at the rated degree of incapacity warranting retirement or separation for disability. a. Disability compensation is not an entitlement acquired by reason of service-incurred illness or injury; rather, it is provided to Soldiers whose service is interrupted and who can no longer continue to reasonably perform because of a physical disability incurred or aggravated in military service. b. Soldiers who sustain or aggravate physically unfitting disabilities must meet the following line-of-duty criteria to be eligible to receive retirement and severance pay benefits: (1) The disability must have been incurred or aggravated while the Soldier was entitled to basic pay or as the proximate cause of performing active duty or inactive duty training. (2) The disability must not have resulted from the Soldier's intentional misconduct or willful neglect and must not have been incurred during a period of unauthorized absence. 6. 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. 7. 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. 8. Army Regulation 15-185 (Army Board for Correction of Military Records (ABCMR)) 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//