IN THE CASE OF: BOARD DATE: 2 August 2023 DOCKET NUMBER: AR20230002112 APPLICANT REQUESTS: reconsideration of his previous request to upgrade his characterization of service from uncharacterized to honorable to an update to his entry level narrative reason for separation. APPLICANT'S SUPPORTING DOCUMENT(S) CONSIDERED BY THE BOARD: * DD Form 149 (Application for Correction of Military Record), 13 October 2022 * statement from legal counsel, undated * DD Form 4 (Enlistment/Reenlistment Document Armed Forces of the United States), 28 July 2005 * 7 pages from military medical record, 22 September 2005 to 14 October 2005 * DD Form 214 (Certificate of Release of Discharge from Active Duty), 19 December 2005 * 1 page from initial psychiatric evaluation, 3 July 2006 * statement from doctor, 7 February 2012 * Under Secretary of Defense Memorandum (Kurta Memo), 25 August 2017, * Unofficial college transcript (Bismarck State College), 2017 to 2019 * Custody agreement (State of ), 21 December 2020 * Curriculum vitae, November 2014 to July 2023 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 AR20200002711 on 25 November 2020. 2. The applicant’s legal counsel states: a. The applicant submitted his application to correct his narrative reason for separation and separation code from reflecting "Entry-Level Separation, Uncharacterized" to "Honorable." The brief is for the purpose of the Board's consideration while conducting a records review. The request was made based on errors in law that were made by the applicant's chain of command and the injustice that resulted due to those errors. b. The Board is presented with the story of a motivated, intelligent young man who aspired to serve his country. He met the medical and physical standards for military procurement at the time of enlistment. His psychological state deteriorated once he began military training. Despite his efforts to deal with the manifestation of his symptoms, he was dismissed within his entry level status period. He had served honorably during the 5 months he was in the Army and has since maintained his good name. c. He enlisted in the U.S. Army Reserve (USAR) delayed entry program (DEP) on 15 July 2005 for a term of 8 years. On 28 July 2005, he was discharged from the USAR DEP and enlisted in the active Army for a term of 4 years. After seeking psychotherapy for adjustment disorder and depression, he was discharged from the Army on 19 December 2005 for failing to meet medical or physical procurement standards. He applied to the Army Discharge Review Board (ADRB) but was denied an upgraded discharge on 1 November 2019. d. It is submitted, the applicant's chain of command made an error in discretion when it decided to remove the applicant from the Army without affording him ample opportunity to overcome his deficiencies. e. A Chapter 5-17 separation Army Regulation (AR) 635-200 (Active Duty Enlisted Administrative Separations) can be approved by a commander on the basis of other physical or mental conditions not amounting to disability and excluding conditions appropriate for separation processing under paragraph 5-11 or 5-13 that potentially interfere with assignment to or performance of duty. In this case, the applicant was originally not recommended to be separated from the Army, but only to be moved out of the infantry and into a different military occupational specialty (MOS). He was never moved out of infantry nor moved into a different unit or platoon. f. During his next medical examination, on 29 September 2005, the notes described him as being unable to process information quickly enough for his current MOS and he could potentially end up being harmed due to his psychomotor skills delay. On 3 October 2005, the applicant's sergeant requested he be discharged under chapter 5-17 as a result of his diagnosis of adjustment disorder and depression. g. In his last visit to the clinic, the applicant stated he was hit in the head with a rifle by another Soldier, others were throwing things at him, spitting on him, and hitting him. This medical record strongly suggested he was in need of assistance in adjusting to training but was met with harsh criticism by his peers that went unpunished, and which contributed to his deteriorating mental state. h. The applicant did not receive any other medical diagnoses, while in the Army other than adjustment disorder and depression. The applicant's chain of command should have given him adequate time for rehabilitation from the time he received the adjustment disorder diagnosis. Rehabilitation includes either assigning the Solider a different MOS or potentially sending him to a different section or platoon within the unit or to a new unit. Instead, he was dismissed without the aforementioned opportunity that is prescribed under AR 635-200. The characterization of the applicant's service would have been honorable if he had not been separated within his first 180 days as entry level status. Had the applicant's chain of command been diligent about adhering to the protocol in AR 635-200, the applicant's enlistment time would have exceeded 181 days or he might have been able to stay in the Army within a different MOS. i. Chapter 11-4 of the regulation states counseling and rehabilitation requirements are essential when entry-level performance conduct is the reason for separation. Military service is a calling different from any civilian occupation, and a Soldier should not be separated when this is the sole reason for separation unless efforts at rehabilitation have failed. Thus, the decision to separate him so hastily prior to the end of his entry level period constituted an error in discretion by the Army. j. Furthermore, the applicant's chain of command made a material error in procedure when it did not follow the notification procedures described in AR 635-200, Section I. Prior to involuntary separation under this paragraph, the notification procedure in chapter 2, section I; or the administrative board procedure in Chapter 2, section II would be utilized. The applicant was not given notice in accordance with his right to due process during his separation. The applicant should have been advised of whether the proposed separation could result in discharge, release from active duty to a Reserve Component, or release from custody and control of the Army; the least favorable characterization of service or description of separation he could receive; the type of discharge and character of service recommended by the initiating commander and that the intermediate commanders may recommend a less favorable type of discharge and characterization of service than that recommended by the initiating commander. The applicant received no notice of any kind advising him of the admonishments prescribed above. This lack of notice constituted a material error in procedure on the part of the Army and amounted to a total disregard of the applicant's constitutional right to due process. k. A discharge will be considered equitable unless, during the course of review, it is determined that relief is warranted based upon consideration of the applicant's service record and other evidence presented to the Board such as quality of service. l. Upon his separation, the applicant obtained his commercial truck driving license and pursued an occupation as a driver for various companies. His career as a driver led him to advance to a pump operation and eventually a field supervisor at Oasis Petroleum. m. He has continued to build upon his good character by pursuing his bachelor’s degree in Applied Science in Energy Management so he could provide a better life for his family. He maintained an above average grade point average. He took additional courses outside of his college and received certifications in hydrocarbons. n. The applicant would have performed exceptionally well it the Army had he been given correct rehabilitation and counseling during his entry level status. He is a driven individual with the ability to succeed in his endeavors. His military record does not contain any indication he disregarded his chain of command or performed in any way less than honorable. He was having difficulty coping with military training and needed the appropriate counseling or a change in MOS so he would be able to adjust. o. The applicant has suffered the stigma of an uncharacterized descript of discharge because anything less than honorable is viewed by society with a negative connotation. this stigma is unjust in this case because the applicant did not perform negatively, nor did he exhibit willful misconduct or disobey his chain of command. He experienced a psychological reaction that could have been managed by a more attentive chain of command. p. The applicant is entitled to a correction of his military records to reflect his separation as Honorable and the narrative reason for his discharge secretarial authority. He would have received an honorable discharge as being chaptered under paragraph 11-7 if he had only 30 more days of service, which would have been the case if the chain of command followed procedure. He has demonstrated honorable service in the limited time that he was in the Army. He wished to serve his country selflessly and has since been an upstanding and contributing member of his community. For the foregoing reason, it would equitable an in the interest of justice for the applicant to be granted the requested relief. 3. On 15 July 2005, the applicant underwent and enlistment physical. The medical officer/doctor at the Military Entrance Processing Station did not note any medical issues and found the applicant qualified for enlistment. 4. The applicant enlisted in the Regular Army on 28 July 2005. He was assigned to Fort Benning, GA for training. 5. He provides 7 pages from his military medical record which shows he had a primary diagnosis of an adjustment disorder and was seen on 4 different occasions for the purpose of a psychiatric therapy group: a. On 22 September 2005, he reported problems of adjustment disorder, lethargy, and depression. The doctor noted the applicant’s first sergeant (1SG) said he did not want to separate the applicant from the Army but did not believe he should remain in the infantry. b. On 29 September 2005, he stated he was “wearing thin and he doesn’t’ think he can stick around here much longer and would like to get his MOS changed.” The doctor noted she received a phone call from the applicant’s non-commissioned officer (NCO) who states that he did not feel the applicant needed to be in the Army. c. On 3 October 2005, the applicant was in group therapy with a note requesting discharge from the Army be initiated. The applicant states he would like to get out of the Army and return to college. d. On 14 October 2005, the applicant went to therapy as walk-in patient. He stated things were not going well and that he needed to leave. Further, he stated that the other Soldiers were throwing stuff at him, spitting on him, had hit him in the head with a rifle. 6. The applicant’s separation packet is not available for the Board to review. However, the applicant's DD Form 214 shows he was discharged on 19 December 2005, under the provisions of AR 635-200 (Active Duty Enlisted Administrative Separations), paragraph 5-11, in the rank/grade of Private (PV2)/E-2, and his service was characterized as uncharacterized. He was issued a separation code of JFW and a reentry code of 3. He completed 4 months and 22 days of net active service. Additionally, his DD Form 214 does not list and decorations or awards. 7. The applicant provides: a. 1 page from an initial psychiatric evaluation, shows the applicant underwent a psychiatric examination on 3 July 2006. The applicant stated, “My family thinks something is wrong with my brain chemistry.” The doctor noted, in effect, the applicant had a very odd, peculiar, and guarded affect. He was vague and reluctant to answer many questions. As the interview progressed, he reported he had severe depression while in the Army and was medically discharged due to "depression and anxiety." He was vague in his description, but stated it was "dreary" and with little hope. He denied any suicidal ideation. b. A supporting statement from Dr. , dated 7 February 2012, which states the applicant has been his patient since 2006 and has been on the same medication for the last six years without change. His mental health is stable, and his medications do not interfere with his ability to perform his duties. His mental health diagnosis, nor his medications interfere in anyway with his ability to successfully perform his duties as a driver. c. Under Secretary of Defense Memorandum (Kurta Memo), 25 August 2017 d. A letter from one of his professors, dated 28 August 2017, which states the applicant was very interactive in all the discussions. The questions he asked created learning experiences for all the students. He found the applicant to be a student who was interested in improving his career path. e. An unofficial transcript from Bismarck State College (2017-2019) f. A custody agreement (State of ), 21 December 2020, shows the applicant was awarded primary residential responsibility of the minor child , to include the child’s legal residence for school purposed. g. The applicant's curriculum vitae, which shows his professional experience, education, and relevant skills and certifications. 7. The ABCMR considered the applicant's request to upgrade his under other than honorable conditions characterization of service. On 25 November 2020: a. After reviewing the application and supporting documents, the Board determined relief was not warranted. Based upon the available documentation, the Board found that the applicant’s supporting documents included a statement from his attorney calling the decision an “error in discretion,” not an error in fact. The governing regulation provides that a separation will be described as uncharacterized, if the separation action is initiated within the first 180 days of active-duty service. Therefore, the Board concluded there was insufficient evidence of an error or injustice which would warrant a change in the applicant’s narrative reason for separation. b. An uncharacterized discharge is not meant to be a negative reflection of a Soldier’s military service. It merely means the Soldier has not been in the Army long enough for his or her character of service to be rated as honorable or otherwise. As a result, there is no basis for granting the applicant's request. 8. A letter dated, 21 July 2021, shows the ABCMR notified the applicant that his previous request for upgrade of his discharge was denied. The Board determined the evidence presented did not demonstrate the existence of a probable error or injustice. 9. There is evidence the applicant applied to the ADRB for review of his discharge within that board’s 15-year statute of limitations. A letter dated 7 September 2022, shows the ADRB determined he was properly and equitably discharged and his request for a change in the characterization of service and/or narrative reason of his discharge was denied. 10. Army Regulation 635-200, paragraph 5-11, in effect at the time, states Soldiers who were not medically qualified under procurement medical fitness standard when accepted for enlistment or who became medically disqualified under these standards prior to entry on Active Duty may be separated. Such conditions must be discovered during the first 6 months of Active Duty. If the Soldier is still in an entry level status, service would be described as uncharacterized. 11. The Board should consider the applicant's overall record in accordance with the published equity, injustice, or clemency determination guidance. 12. MEDICAL REVIEW: a. The applicant requests, through counsel, reconsideration of his previous request to upgrade his characterization of service from uncharacterized to honorable and to an update to narrative reason for separation. Counsel contends the applicant’s chain of command made an error in discretion when deciding to remove the applicant. b. The specific facts and circumstances of the case can be found in the ABCMR Record of Proceedings (ROP). Pertinent to this advisory are the following: 1) The applicant enlisted into the Regular Army on 28 July 2005; 2) As outlined in the ROP, the applicant had four behavioral health encounters related to the applicant’s difficulty adjusting to the infantry and the military; 3) The applicant’s separation packet is not available for the Board to review. However, the applicant's DD Form 214 shows he was discharged on 19 December 2005, under the provisions of AR 635-200 (Active Duty Enlisted Administrative Separations), paragraph 5-11, in the rank/grade of Private (PV2)/E-2, and his service was characterized as uncharacterized. c. The military electronic medical record (AHLTA), VA electronic medical record (JLV), ROP, and casefiles were reviewed. A review of AHLTA showed the applicant first engaged in BH care, during service, at the Community Mental Health Clinic at Fort Benning, GA, on 8 September 2005 as a walk-in. The encounter note was sparse on detail but noted the applicant was seen briefly, diagnosed with Adjustment Disorder, and scheduled for an intake assessment. The applicant was seen the next day and reported difficulty accomplishing tasks at the same speed as other Soldiers and expressed having difficulty with the emphasis placed on killing, that was projected in training. The applicant expressed that he did not want to kill anyone or be sent anywhere he might have to kill anyone. The provider noted the applicant with a history of ADHD that was diagnosed in 2002 and controlled with Adderall. He reportedly last took Adderall in 2004. He also reported a history of marijuana abuse beginning between age 14 – 15 years old and resulted in rehabilitative treatment. He reportedly last used marijuana in 2004. It was further noted the applicant would be further evaluated to rule out medical, intellectual, and psychiatric conditions that may be causing psychomotor retardation. He was diagnosed with Depression and scheduled for outpatient therapy. d. Encounter note dated 30 September 2003 showed that during group therapy the applicant stated that he was wearing thin and didn’t think he could stick around there much longer: he expressed a desire to get his MOS changed. The provider noted haven been contacted by the applicant’s training NCO who stated he did not believe the applicant should be in the Army due to the amount of time it took him to process information, and that the deficit would get him killed. Encounter note dated 3 October 2005 showed the applicant was sent to the clinic by his Sergeant with a note requesting a Chapter 5-17. Encounter note dated 7 October 2005 showed the applicant reported that he was hanging in there but ready to go home. He noted the other Soldiers were starting to give him a hard time because he wasn’t training the way they were. The applicant stated he wanted to get out of the Army and return to college. e. On 14 October 2005, the applicant, again, went to the BH clinic as walk-in. He stated things were not going well and that he needed to leave. He further stated that the other Soldiers were throwing stuff at him, spitting on him, had hit him in the head with a rifle. The provider noted her intent to call command. Encounter note dated 18 October 2005 showed the provider and applicant conducted a VTC with a psychiatrist to discuss the applicant’s case. A decision was made that the applicant should be separated under an EPTS discharge for Depression, given the applicant was diagnosed with Depression in 2002 and experienced recurrent depression since joining the military. It was noted that the Soldier did not meet fitness standards for enlistment IAW 40-501 Chapter 2, and it was recommended he be separated under provisions of AR 635-200, Chapter 5-11. He was diagnosed with MDD recurrent and continued in outpatient BH treatment through November 2005. f. A review of JLV was void of any BH treatment history for the applicant and he does not have a service-connected disability. Included in the applicant’s casefile was the summary of a psychiatric evaluation, conducted on 3 July 2006. During the evaluation the applicant stated that his “family thinks something is wrong with [his] brain chemistry.” The doctor noted, in effect, the applicant had a very odd, peculiar, and guarded affect. He was vague and reluctant to answer many questions. The applicant was diagnosed with Schizophreniform Disorder. There was nothing that indicated the diagnosis was related to military service. Also included in the casefile was a supporting statement from Dr. ., dated 7 February 2012, which stated the applicant has been his patient since 2006 and has been on the same medication for the last six years without change. His mental health is stable, and his medications do not interfere with his ability to perform his duties. His mental health diagnosis, nor his medications interfere in anyway with his ability to successfully perform his duties as a driver. g. The applicant requests, through counsel, reconsideration of his previous request to upgrade his characterization of service from uncharacterized to honorable and an update to his narrative reason for separation. The applicant, through counsel, contends the applicant’s chain of command made an error in discretion when deciding to remove the applicant. A review of the records showed the applicant diagnosed with Adjustment Disorder and MDD during service. It was determined the applicant MDD existed prior to service, with initial onset in 2002. The applicant shared that he was prescribed psychotropic medication for the treatment of MDD symptoms in 2002 and took the medication for approximately one year. Records showed that since entering the military the applicant experienced recurrent depression, had difficulty functioning, lacked motivation to serve, and expressed a desire to leave military service. The provider noted that because of the applicant’s recurrent depression, he would likely continue to experience impairing difficulties if he remained in the military, and therefore the provider recommended separation under provisions of Chapter 5-11 of AR 635-200. The applicant provided documentation of a post-service diagnosis of Schizophreniform Disorder. There is no indication the disorder is related to military service. Given that available records showed the applicant had a BH condition that existed prior to service, that it was negatively impacting his ability to adjust and function in the military, that he desired to be discharged, and the decision to separated was made within the 180-day window, it appears the separation decision was proper and equitable and there is insufficient evidence to warrant a change to discharge characterization or narrative reason for separation. h. Based on the available information, it is the opinion of the Agency BH Advisor that there is insufficient evidence in the records that the applicant had a condition or experience during his time in service that mitigated the discharge decision. However, the applicant, through counsel, contends the applicant’s chain of command made an error in discretion when deciding to remove the applicant from service, and per Liberal Consideration guidance, his contention is sufficient to warrant the Board’s consideration. (1) Does any evidence state that the applicant had a condition or experience that may excuse or mitigate a discharge? Yes. The applicant, through counsel, contends the applicant’s chain of command made an error in discretion when deciding to remove the applicant from service. (2) Did the condition exist, or experience occur during military service? Yes. (3) Does the condition or experience actually excuse or mitigate the discharge? No. The applicant requests, through counsel, reconsideration of his previous request to upgrade his characterization of service from uncharacterized to honorable and an update to his narrative reason for separation. The applicant, through counsel, contends the applicant’s chain of command made an error in discretion when deciding to remove the applicant. A review of the records showed the applicant diagnosed with Adjustment Disorder and MDD during service. It was determined the applicant MDD existed prior to service, with initial onset in 2002. The applicant shared that he was prescribed psychotropic medication for the treatment of MDD symptoms in 2002 and took the medication for approximately one year. Records showed that since entering the military the applicant experienced recurrent depression, had difficulty functioning, lacked motivation to serve, and expressed a desire to leave military service. The provider noted that because of the applicant’s recurrent depression, he would likely continue to experience impairing difficulties if he remained in the military, and therefore the provider recommended separation under provisions of Chapter 5-11 of AR 635-200. The applicant provided documentation of a post-service diagnosis of Schizophreniform Disorder. There is no indication the disorder is related to military service. Given that available records showed the applicant had a BH condition that existed prior to service, that it was negatively impacting his ability to adjust and function in the military, that he desired to be discharged, and the decision to separated was made within the 180-day window, it appears the separation decision was proper and equitable and there is insufficient evidence to warrant a change to discharge characterization or narrative reason for separation. BOARD DISCUSSION: 1. After reviewing the application, all supporting documents, and the evidence found within the military record, the Board found that relief was not warranted. The Board carefully considered through counsel 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, and published Department of Defense guidance for liberal and clemency determinations requests for upgrade of his characterization of service. The governing regulation provides that a separation will be described as an entry-level separation, with service uncharacterized, if the separation action is initiated while a Soldier is in entry-level status. Upon review of the applicant’s petition, available military records and the medical review, the Board concurred with the advising official finding there is insufficient evidence in the records that the applicant had a condition or experience during his time in service that mitigated the discharge decision. He applicant completed 4 months and 22 days of net active service 2. The Board determined the applicant’s MDD existed prior to service, with initial onset in 2002. The applicant shared that he was prescribed psychotropic medication for the treatment of MDD symptoms in 2002 and took the medication for approximately one year. Evidence in the record showed that since entering the military the applicant experienced recurrent depression, had difficulty functioning, lacked motivation to serve, and expressed a desire to leave military service. The Board noted, there is no indication the disorder is related to military service. Based on the preponderance of evidence the Board determined that the narrative reason was not in error or unjust. The Board determined the applicant’s counsel provided insufficient evidence the warrants amendment to the previous Board decision and denied relief. 3. An uncharacterized discharge is not derogatory; it is recorded when a Soldier has not completed more than 180 days of creditable continuous active duty prior to initiation of separation. It merely means the Soldier has not served on active duty long enough for his or her character of service to be rated as honorable or otherwise. 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 AR20200002711 on 25 November 2020. 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. Army Regulation 635-200 (Active Duty Enlisted Administrative Separations) sets policies, standards, and procedures to ensure the readiness and competency of the force while providing for the orderly administrative separation of Soldiers for a variety of reasons. Readiness is promoted by maintaining high standards of conduct and performance. a. Paragraph 3-4(2) Entry-Level status. Service will be uncharacterized, and so indicated in block 24 of DD Form 214, except as provided in paragraph 3–9a. b. Paragraph 3-7 states an honorable discharge is a separation with honor. The honorable characterization is appropriate when the quality of the soldier'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. Paragraph 3-9a Entry-level status separation. A separation will be described as entry-level with service uncharacterized if processing is initiated while a Soldier is in entry-level status, except when— (1) Characterization under other than honorable conditions is authorized under the reason for separation and is warranted by the circumstances of the case. (2) HQDA, on a case-by-case basis, determines that characterization of service as honorable is clearly warranted by the presence of unusual circumstances involving personal conduct and performance of duty. This characterization is authorized when the Soldier is separated by reason of selected changes in service obligation, convenience of the Government, and Secretarial plenary authority. (3) The Soldier has less than 181 days of continuous active military service, has completed Initial Entry Training, has been awarded an MOS, and has reported for duty at a follow-on unit of assignment. d. Paragraph 5-1(b) states, no soldier will be awarded a character of service of under honorable conditions under this chapter unless the soldier is notified of the specific factors in his or her service record that warrant such a characterization, using the notification procedure. Such characterization is normally inappropriate for soldiers separated under the provisions of paragraph 5-4, 5-11, 5-12, 5-15, 5-16, or paragraph 5-17. Paragraph 5-11 states, soldiers are subject to discharge under the provisions Army Regulation 635-200, paragraph 5-11, who were not medically qualified under procurement medical fitness standards when accepted for enlistment, or who became medically disqualified under these standards prior to entry on active duty or for initial entry training for Army National Guard United States (ARNGUS) and USAR which: (1) Would hive permanently or temporarily disqualified him or her for entry into the military service or entry on AD or ADT for initial entry training had it been detected at that time. (2) Does not disqualify him or her for retention in the military service under the provisions of AR 40-501, chapter 3. e. Section II (Terms): (1) Character of service for administrative separation - A determination reflecting a Soldier’s military behavior and performance of duty during a specific period of service. The three characterizations are honorable, general (under honorable conditions), and under other than honorable conditions. The service of Soldiers in entry-level status is normally described as uncharacterized. (2) Entry-level status For Regular Army Soldiers, entry-level status is the first 180 days of continuous AD or the first 180 days of continuous AD following a break of more than 92 days of active military service. 2. Section 1556 of Title 10, United States Code, requires the Secretary of the Army to ensure that an applicant seeking corrective action by the Army Review Boards Agency (ARBA) be provided with a copy of any correspondence and communications (including summaries of verbal communications) to or from the Agency with anyone outside the Agency that directly pertains to or has material effect on the applicant's case, except as authorized by statute. ARBA medical advisory opinions and reviews are authored by ARBA civilian and military medical and behavioral health professionals and are therefore internal agency work product. Accordingly, ARBA does not routinely provide copies of ARBA Medical Office recommendations, opinions (including advisory opinions), and reviews to Army Board for Correction of Military Records applicants (and/or their counsel) prior to adjudication. //NOTHING FOLLOWS// ABCMR Record of Proceedings (cont) AR20230002112 1 ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 1