IN THE CASE OF: 
BOARD DATE: 16 August 2023 
DOCKET NUMBER: AR20230002382 


APPLICANT REQUESTS: reconsideration of his previous request for an upgrade of his under other than honorable conditions characterization of service. 

APPLICANT'S SUPPORTING DOCUMENT(S) CONSIDERED BY THE BOARD: 

•DD Form 149 (Application for Correction of Military Record)

•certificate of completion, Water Safety Instructor Course, 31 May 2018

•information report of disability rating, 23 September 2020

•certificate of completion, Certified Personal Trainer, 8 April 2021

•certificate of participation, National Veterans Creative Arts Competition,15 March 2022

•letter of support from Veterans Affairs (VA) Psychiatric Mental Health NursePractitioner, 12 September 2022

•letter of recommendation from VA Voices program facilitator, Ms. M.A.M,5 October 2022



FACTS: 

1.Incorporated herein by reference are military records which were summarized in theprevious consideration of the applicant's case by the Army Board for Correction ofMilitary Records (ABCMR) in Docket Number AR20100014645 on 2 December 2010.

2.The applicant states, in effect, he wants an upgrade to his discharge characterizationbased on new evidence from his therapist. He lists post-traumatic stress disorder(PTSD), other mental health conditions, and sexual assault/harassment asissues/conditions related to his request for a discharge upgrade.

3.The applicant enlisted in the Mississippi Army National Guard (MSARNG) on11 January 2000. He successfully completed Basic Combat Training and AdvancedIndividual Training and was awarded the military occupational specialty 31C (RadioOperator/Maintainer).



4.His DA Form 2-1 (Personnel Qualification Record) shows he was promoted –

•private 2 (PV2)/E-2 on 11 January 2000

•private first class (PFC)/E-3 on 6 January 2001

•specialist (SPC)/E-4 on 6 April 2001



5.On 2 January 2003, the applicant was ordered to active duty in support of OperationEnduring/Iraqi Freedom for a period not to exceed 458 days (2 January 2003 to4 April 2004).

6.The record contains a series of documents addressing the applicant's absencewithout leave (AWOL) and dropped from the rolls (DFR) status:

a.Two DA Form 4187 (Personnel Actions) show, on 5 August 2003, the applicant’sunit reported him AWOL and on 4 September 2003, he was DFR. 

b.A DD Form 553 (Deserter/Absentee Wanted by the Armed Forces) notes his dutystatus and contains the following remark from his commander, "SOLDIER IS A HABITUAL FTR [Failure to Report] AND AWOL." 

7.On 4 February 2004, the applicant’s records show:

a.Court-martial charges were preferred against the applicant. The DD Form 458(Charge Sheet) shows he was charged with being AWOL from B Company, United States Army Garrison Mobilization Holding Battalion, Fort Stewart, GA, from on or about 5 August 2003 and remained continuously absent. 

b.His company commander sent letters to his parent unit commander and theapplicant's parents letting them know of his AWOL duty status and advising them to convince the applicant to return to military control.  

8.On 10 September 2004, the applicant’s unit reported him present for duty. Hisrecords do not indicate whether his return was voluntary or if he was apprehended.

9.On 6 October 2004, the applicant consulted with legal counsel and was advised ofhis rights under the Uniform Code of Military Justice, the elements of the offense he wascharged with and the facts which must be established by competent evidence beyond areasonable doubt to sustain a finding of guilty. He was also advised of the best possibledefenses available to him at the time and the maximum permissible punishmentauthorized if found guilty. Following this consultation, the applicant voluntarily requesteda discharge under the provision of Army Regulation (AR) 635-200 (PersonnelSeparations – Active Duty Enlisted Administrative Separations), chapter 10 (Dischargein Lieu of Trial by Court-Martial). In his request, he acknowledged:

a.He was making his request of his own free will, he was not subject to coercion ofany form, and he was advised of the implications of his request. He further acknowledged that he fully understood the elements of the offenses he was charged with, and he was guilty of at least one of the charges against him or of a lesser-included offense, which also authorized the imposition of a bad conduct or dishonorable discharge. 

b.He understood that if his request for discharge was accepted, he may be reducedto the grade of E-1 prior to being discharged, he may be discharged with a characterization of service under other than honorable conditions and he understood the possible effects of an under other than honorable discharge. 

c.He understood that, as a result of the issuance of such a discharge, he may bedeprived of many or all Army benefits, that he may lose many or all benefits administered by the Veterans’ Administration, and that he may be deprived of his rights and benefits as a veteran under both Federal and State law. 

d.He understood that he may expect substantial prejudice in civilian life because ofan under other than honorable discharge. 

e.He understood that there is no automatic upgrade or review by any governmentagency of a less than honorable discharge, that he must apply to the Army Discharge Review Board (ADRB) or to the ABCMR if he wants a review of his discharge, and that consideration by either board does not imply his discharge will be upgraded. 

f.He understood, unless trail results in an acquittal or a sentence does not include apunitive discharge, his request for discharge may be withdrawn only with the consent of the commander exercising general court-martial authority. 

g.He also understood that if he became AWOL, his request may be processed, andhe may be discharged even though he was absent. 

10.The applicant submitted a statement on his own behalf, wherein he stated, herespectfully asked his command to leave the service as soon as possible. He enjoyedhis time in the National Guard and was proud of his service over the past five years,including his service in Iraq. He felt his overall service record really spoke to who hewas as a Soldier. He had always looked to work hard and perform his duties as he wastrained. He regrated the circumstances which had brought him to the point he foundhimself. He understood he was facing the possible stigma of an under other thanhonorable discharge. He was concerned about the effect such a discharge would haveon him in civilian life, but he accepted such a trade-off to streamline the process for allconcerned. He was only 22 years old, and even as his military service was ending, hehad the highest hopes for the future.

11.On 7 October 2004, Office of the Staff Judge Advocate contacted the applicant’schain of command and received confirmation of the immediate and intermediatecommanders’ recommendation for approval of the applicant's request for discharge andcharacterization of service of under other than honorable conditions.

12.On 7 October 2004, the approval authority approved the applicant's request fordischarge under the provision of AR 635-200, chapter 10 with an under other thanhonorable conditions character of service and directed the applicant's immediatereduction to the lowest enlisted rank/grade private (PV1)/E-1.

13.The applicant was discharged on 14 October 2004, under the provisions ofAR 635-200, chapter 10, in lieu of trial by court-martial, with an under other honorableconditions characterization of service in the rank/grade of private (PV1/E-1). Hereceived a Separation Code of “KFS.” His DD Form 214 contains the following entries ofinformation:

a.He completed 8 months of net active service of which 2 months, and 21 days wasforeign service in Kuwait from 5 February 2003 to 24 April 2003. 

b.Block 27 (Reentry Code) contains in illegible entry.

c.Block 29 (Dates of Time Lost During This Period) shows lost time under 10 U.S.C972 from 5 August 2003 to 10 September 2004. 

14.On 16 November 2006, the ABCMR considered the applicant’s request forcorrection of his DD Form 214 to removing his AWOL/Time lost period from 5 August2003 to 10 September 2004. After reviewing the application and all supportingdocuments, the Board determined relief was not warranted. The Board found theevidence presented did not demonstrate the existence of a probable error or injustice asa basis for correction of the applicant’s records.

15.On 13 December 2006, he applied to the ADRB for an upgrade of his dischargecontending that his discharge was inequitable because it was based on one isolatedincident and an upgrade would allow him to seek medical attention that he needed. TheADRB found his discharge to be both proper and equitable under the circumstancesand voted to deny his request on 16 January 2008.

16.On 2 December 2010, the ABCMR considered the applicant's request for anupgrade of his under other than honorable conditions characterization of service to anhonorable characterization of service. After reviewing the application and all supportingdocuments, the Board determined relief was not warranted. The Board found theevidence presented did not demonstrate the existence of a probable error or injustice asa basis for correction of the applicant’s records.

17.The applicant provides –

a.Two certificates of completion, dated 31 May 2018 and 8 April 2021, showing he











completed the American Red Cross Water Safety Instructor Course, and he completed all requirement to become a certified personal trainer.. b. An Information Report, dated 23 September 2020, showing a service-connected disability rating of 20 percent for his right leg. c. A certificate from the Department of Veterans Affairs, dated 15 March 2022, recognizing the applicant participation in the 2021 National Veterans Creative Arts Competition. d. A letter of support from his VA practicing psychiatric mental health nurse practitioner, Ms. , stating she was involved in the applicant's primary care since 6 November 2017 and was familiar with his psychiatric history. His diagnosis includes major depressive disorder, recurrent, mild; anxiety disorder, unspecified; and insomnia, unspecified. She understands the applicant was involved in a series of incidents while serving in the U.S. Army National Guard, which led to his depression, anxiety, and insomnia. These symptoms can affect cognitive functions, judgment, and behavior. From her knowledge of the applicant's mental conditions and history, it is her opinion that his psychiatric symptoms affected his behavior, can explain his misconduct, and should be seen as mitigating factors in his misconduct. e. A letter of recommendation from Ms. , dated 5 October 2022, stating he had the pleasure of working with the applicant from 2018 to 2022 as they cared for our national heroes at the  VA Medical Center, , . He has served as the VA Voices program facilitator and learning circle leader. He assisted with screening and distributing masks to employees and Veterans and also assisted with the employee assistance program during COVID, helping the morale of the staff. His communication and people skills are excellent; he is accommodating, and customer focused. He understands the importance of integrity, commitment, advocacy, respect, and excellence. 18. The Army Review Board Agency, Case Management Division, considered the applicant’s claim of sexual assault/harassment as an issue related to his request for a discharge upgrade. On 14 April 2023, the Case Management Division sent a memorandum to the U.S. Army Criminal Investigation Command requesting a redacted copy of the CID and Military Police report pertaining to the applicant’s claim.











19.On 26 April 2023, the Army Criminal Investigation Division responded to the ARBA,Case Management Division request and stated their search utilizing the informationprovided by the ARBA revealed no records pertaining to the applicant.20.Medical documents from his military record, dated from 18 March 2003 to5 September 2003, show he injured his knee right thigh in February in Fort Stewart, hisinjury got worse while deploy to Kuwait (February to April), he was sent to LandstuhlRegional Medical Center in Germany (April to May) for evaluation and treatment andsent back to the United States for further evaluation and treatment at Fort Stewart andFort Gordon (May to September). He had an MRI done at Landstuhl and Fort Gordonwhich showed a torn quadricep. He was placed on a Temporary profile for right thighpain and torn quadricep from 5 -19 September 2003.21.Regulatory guidance in effect at the time provided discharges under the provision ofAR 635-200, chapter 10, where voluntary requests from the Soldier to be discharged inlieu of a trial by court-martial.22.The applicant provided evidence or argument that the Board should considerfollowing the published clemency guidance.23.MEDICAL REVIEW:a.Background: The applicant is requesting reconsideration of his previous requestfor an upgrade of his under other than honorable conditions characterization of service. The applicant asserts that PTSD, MST, and other mental health mitigate his misconduct.   
b.The specific facts and circumstances of the case can be found in the ABCMRRecord of Proceedings (ROP). Below is a brief summary of information pertinent to this advisory:  

•The applicant enlisted in the Mississippi Army National Guard (MSARNG) on11 January 2000.

•The applicant was placed on orders to Iraq 2 January 2003. He was only deployedfor approximately 2 months and 21 days, which his records indicating he was inKuwait (not Iraq) from 5 February 2003 to 24 April 2003.

•Court-martial charges were preferred against the applicant for being AWOL from BCompany, United States Army Garrison Mobilization Holding Battalion, Fort Stewart,GA, from on or about 5 August 2003 and remained continuously absent. On 10September 2004, the applicant’s unit reported him present for duty (unclear if he wasapprehended).

•The applicant voluntarily requested a discharge under AR 635-200, chapter 10(Discharge in Lieu of Trial by Court-Martial).


•The applicant was discharged on 14 October 2004, under AR 635-200, chapter 10,in lieu of trial by court-martial, with an under other honorable conditionscharacterization of service.

•The applicant was previously denied by the ADRB 16 January 2008, and theABCMR on 16 November 2006 and 2 December 2010.


c.Review of Available Records Including Medical:
The Army Review Boards Agency (ARBA) Behavioral Health (BH) Advisor reviewed this case. Documentation reviewed included the applicant’s completed DD Form 149, ABCMR Record of Proceedings (ROP), certificates of completion and participation, information report of disability rating, letter of recommendation, letter from his mental health provider, as well as documents from his service record and separation. The VA electronic medical record and DoD health record were reviewed through Joint Longitudinal View (JLV). Lack of citation or discussion in this section should not be interpreted as lack of consideration.  

d.The applicant stated that he wants to upgrade his discharge based on newevidence from his therapist. The applicant asserts PTSD, MST and other mental health as mitigating factors in his discharge. The applicant was charged with going AWOL, and his service record notes he was a “habitual FTR and AWOL.” The applicant submitted a statement on his own behalf as part of his separation process, indicating he was proud of his time in the service and his time in Iraq. At the time of misconduct, he did not assert any stressors or mental health concerns and gave no explanation of his decision making. Medical records provided in his supporting documents show he injured his knee during initial training at FT Gordon in January of 2001, it worsened while deployed to Kuwait. He was sent to Landstuhl for evaluation and treatment then back to the US for additional treatment May to September 2003. He reportedly went AWOL from there. The medical note from Landstuhl reports the applicant was “mentally sound.” The medical note from FT Stewart indicates he denied feeling down, depressed or hopeless, or lacked interested or pleasure in the things he was doing (i.e. he screened negative for depression). He denied depressive symptoms on 21 May 2003 and 5 September 2003. Of note, the 5 September encounter was during the time he was reportedly AWOL.  
e.No evidence was provided by the applicant to substantiate his assertion of MST. Arequest for information from CID did not produce any records or data about the applicants asserted MST. The applicant did not provide any mental health records from his time in service. There are no mental health encounters in electronic health records (EHR) from his time in service to review.  
f.Of note, his 2010 application to the board included a self-authored statement fromhim, a statement from his father, and statement from a peer service member from the time of his alleged AWOL. All accounts were consistent, and indicate the applicant was told to return home for care, to include this being told to his family, and that he later learned his unit counted him as AWOL. Considering there is at least one document placing him still on base and receiving medical care during his alleged AWOL, as well as documents showing he registered for Tricare Prime Remote (as reportedly instructed), there are some inconsistencies in the charges against the applicant. While false allegations and reportedly being pressured to take a deal so as to avoid jail do not meet criterion A for a trauma, this advisor would consider it stressors likely significant enough to cause psychological symptoms consistent with anxiety and/or depression.  
g.Per the applicant’s EHR and provided documents, he is not service connected fora mental health condition (20% for his knee condition). Of note, his record indicates that his mental health C&P was cancelled in 2015 due to the characterization of his discharge. The applicant first began engaging in mental health care through the VA in 2008. An encounter dated 1 April 2008 gives report of his psychological history. The applicant appears to have had mental health concerns that predated his service, with applicant reporting paranoia and OCD since he was a teenager, as well as excessive worrying. His mother died of lung cancer (but had Lupus) in 2006, but prior to that, and as a teenager he had significant worry and stress around her health. At the time of his initial assessment, he was diagnosed with bereavement, sleep disorder, social anxiety disorder, and rule out of schizoaffective disorder and other psychosis (paranoia). Collateral information from the patient’s father is quoted in an encounter from 29 April 2008, which states the father felt that his son “was a different person after he returned home from deployment.” An encounter from 23 March 2015 states the patient reported experiencing racism and threats of being arrested while he was in the service. The applicant has also been diagnosed with insomnia, bipolar disorder II, depressed (with rule out of substance induced bipolar), anxiety disorder, cannabis abuse, major depressive disorder. He has been seen for case management, therapy and medication management. To date, his medical records through the VA to do note any mention of the applicant experience an MST or combat related trauma symptoms.  
h.The applicant submitted a letter from his psychiatric mental health nursepractitioner (dated 12 September 2022). She stated she’s been working with him since 6 November 2017. She attests to him being diagnosed with major depressive disorder, recurrent mild, anxiety disorder, unspecified, and insomnia, unspecified. She reports that she “understands he was involved in a series of incidents” while serving and that these events led to the development of the depression, anxiety and insomnia. She states “In my opinion, his misconduct can be explained by these psychiatric symptoms. In my opinion, Mr. Earnest Frazier’s psychiatric symptoms should be seen as a mitigating factor in the misconduct.”   
i.It is the opinion of the Agency Behavioral Health Advisor that there is insufficientevidence outside of self-report to indicate the applicant had a mitigating condition during his time in service. There is also no evidence, outside of self-report, that he had a mitigating experience (MST). However, there is sufficient evidence that since his discharge he has experienced significant mental health concerns, has been diagnosed with potentially mitigating conditions, and one of his primary mental health providers has suggest his mental health as present during his time in service and mitigated his behaviors. Per Liberal Consideration guidance, his contention is sufficient to warrant the Board’s consideration. 

Kurta Questions: 
(1)Does any evidence state that the applicant had a condition or experience thatmay excuse or mitigate a discharge? Yes. The applicant contends he had mitigating conditions (PTSD, “other mental health”) and a mitigating experience (MST).   
(2)Did the condition exist, or experience occur during military service? Yes. Theapplicant does assert a mitigating conditions and experience occurred during his time in service.  
(3)Does the condition or experience actually excuse or mitigate the discharge? Yes.There is insufficient evidence beyond self-report that the applicant was experiencing a mental health condition (or conditions) at his time of his discharge. There is not evidence the applicant has ever been diagnosed with PTSD. There is no evidence of the applicant experiencing an MST, and no indication he has ever disclosed an MST during treatment. However, the applicant has since been diagnosed with several potentially mitigating mental health conditions (depression, anxiety, bipolar disorder). His records suggest some mental health started before his time in service. His records, and most consistent mental health provider, has stated that his behaviors were mitigated by his mental health symptoms and other occurrences form his time in service.  AWOL is an avoidance behavior associated with the natural history and sequelae of trauma-exposure/PTSD, as well as depression and anxiety. There is a nexus between his asserted experiences and conditions and the misconduct leading to his discharge.  In summary, mitigation is supported, and an upgrade is recommended with a narrative reason for separation change to Secretarial Authority. 

j.In addition, should the board upgrade his discharge, this advisor would recommendhis case be reviewed by physician medical advisor to determine if he should be referred to IDES. This recommendation for review is based on his injury during his deployment (partial quadricep tear), previous diagnosis of tear of medial cartilage or meniscus of knee, being placed on profile, was recommended for PT/additional treatment, and applicant stated during previous board application that he was told he would be considered for a MEB prior to allegedly being sent home to receive treatment.  

k.Lastly, a review of his record shows there are significant inconsistencies in theArmy’s charges of AWOL (at appointments on post during alleged AWOL time frame, registering for Tricare Prime once he returned home, written statements from family/peers, documents supporting FT. Stewart had an overcrowding concern during that time and were moving soldiers elsewhere for care, etc.). If mitigation due to asserted MST and mental health were not already recommended, this advisor would also strongly recommend clemency. 


BOARD DISCUSSION: 

1.After reviewing the application, all supporting documents, and the evidence foundwithin the military record, the Board found that relief was not warranted. The Boardcarefully considered the applicant's record of service, documents submitted in supportof the petition and executed a comprehensive and standard review based on law, policyand regulation, and published Department of Defense guidance for liberal and clemencydeterminations requests for upgrade of his characterization of service.  Upon review ofthe applicant’s petition, available military records and medical review, the Boardconcurred with the advising official finding insufficient evidence beyond self-report thatindicates the applicant had mitigating conditions that show he was experiencing amental health condition (or conditions) at his time of his discharge. The Board noted,there is no evidence the applicant has ever been diagnosed with PTSD. There is noevidence outside of his self-report that the applicant was experiencing an MST, and noindication he has ever disclosed an MST during treatment.

2.Based on the medical opine, the Board considered the fact the applicant has sincebeen diagnosed with several potentially mitigating mental health conditions (depression,anxiety, bipolar disorder). His records suggest some mental health started before histime in service. His records, and most consistent mental health provider, has stated thathis behaviors were mitigated by his mental health symptoms and other occurrencesform his time in service.  AWOL is an avoidance behavior associated with the naturalhistory and sequelae of trauma-exposure/PTSD, as well as depression and anxiety.There is a nexus between his asserted experiences and conditions and the misconductleading to his discharge. However, the Board determined based on the preponderanceof evidence the applicant had a pre-existing condition that appears to have had mentalhealth concerns that predated his service, with applicant reporting paranoia and OCDsince he was a teenager, as well as excessive worrying. The Board determined therewas insufficient evidence to grant relief in spite of the medical opine finding mitigatingfactors. Therefore, the Board denied relief.

3.Prior to closing the case, the Board did note the analyst of record administrativenotes below, and recommended the correction is completed to more accurately depictthe military service of the applicant.



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: 

Except for the correction addressed in Administrative Note(s) below, 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 AR20100014645 on 2 December 2010. 


Microsoft Office Signature Line...
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. 


ADMINISTRATIVE NOTES: 

A review of the applicant’s service record contains sufficient evidence to support administrative corrections that are not annotated on his DD Form 214 for the period ending 14 October 2004.   The applicant completed basic training and was awarded the military occupational specialty (MOS) of 31C (Radio Operator/Maintainer) and released back to his unit. These omissions will be corrected with a Statement of Service as administrative corrections and will not be considered by the Board, to show in characterization of service as honorable   



 
REFERENCES: 
 
1.  AR 635-200, in effect at the time, set forth the primary authority for separating enlisted personnel.  
 
 a.  Chapter 10 states in part, a member who has committed an offense or offenses, the punishment for any of which, under the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ) and the Manual for Court-Martial, include bad conduct or dishonorable discharge, may submit a request for discharge for the good of the service. In addition, the request for discharge may be submitted at any stage in the processing of the charges until the court-martial convening authority's final action on the case. Commanders will also ensure that a member will not be coerced into submitting a request for discharge for the good of the Service. The member will be given a reasonable time (not least 72 hours) to consult with a consulting counsel and to consider the wisdom of submitting such a request for discharge.  
 
 b.  An honorable discharge is a separation with honor. The issuance of an honorable discharge certificate is predicated upon proper military behavior and proficient performance of duty during the member's current enlistment or period of obligated service with due consideration for the member's age, length of service, grade, and general aptitude. Where a member has served faithfully and performed to the best of his ability, and there is no derogatory information in his military record, he should be furnished an honorable discharge certificate. 
 
 c.  An under honorable conditions (general), discharge is a separation from the Army under honorable conditions. It is issued to a member whose military record is satisfactory but not sufficiently meritorious to warrant an honorable discharge. 
 
 d.  An under other than honorable discharge is an administrative separation from the service under conditions other than honorable. It may be issued for misconduct and the good of the service. 
 
 e.  An uncharacterized -the Soldier is on active duty with less than 181 days of continuous active military service, has completed IET, has been awarded an MOS, and has reported for duty at a follow-on unit of assignment (see para 11–3c). RC Soldiers will receive a characterization of service as “honorable” upon successful completion of IET. 
 
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 type of court-martial. However, the guidance applies to more than clemency from a sentencing in a court-martial; it also applies to other corrections, including changes in a discharge, which may be warranted based on equity or relief from injustice.  
 
 a.  This guidance does not mandate relief but provides standards and principles to guide Boards 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.  
 
 b.  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.  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//