DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDS 701 S. COURTHOUSE ROAD, SUITE 1001 ARLINGTON, VA 22204-2490 Docket No. 5827-20 Ref: Signature Date Dear This is in reference to your application for correction of your naval record pursuant to Section 1552 of Title 10, United States Code. After careful and conscientious consideration of relevant portions of your naval record and your application, the Board for Correction of Naval Records (Board) found the evidence submitted insufficient to establish the existence of probable material error or injustice. Consequently, your application has been denied. A three-member panel of the Board, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 22 July 2021. The names and votes of the members of the panel will be furnished upon request. Your allegations of error and injustice were reviewed in accordance with administrative regulations and procedures applicable to the proceedings of this Board. Documentary material considered by the Board consisted of your application, together with all material submitted in support thereof, relevant portions of your naval record and applicable statutes, regulations and policies. In addition, the Board considered the advisory opinion contained in Director CORB letter 5819 CORB: 001 of 14 December 2020 along with your response to the opinion. A review of your record shows that you entered active duty with the Navy in 2005. You deployed to Afghanistan in August 2011 as a Network Security Vulnerability Technician and assert to have been exposed to over 100 rocket attacks and one Improvised Explosive Device (IED) explosion during your deployment. Upon your return from Afghanistan, you were treated for mental health symptoms related to Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder along with symptoms related to Tinnitus, Traumatic Brain Injury (TBI), and Migraine Headaches. Ultimately, you were placed on the Temporary Disability Retirement List for your PTSD and mental health symptoms in July 2013. You were later transferred to the Permanent Disability Retirement List in 2015. Medical records consistently document your assertions that you were exposed to multiple rocket attacks and one IED explosion during your 2011-2012 deployment. However, your August 2017 Combat Related Special Compensation (CRSC) application was denied by the CRSC Board on 27 November 2018 based on lack of evidence that your claimed disability conditions were incurred as a result of a specific combat related event. Your request for reconsideration was also denied on 15 October 2018 for the same reasons. The Board carefully considered your arguments that you deserve CRSC for your TBI, Tinnitus, and Migraine Headaches. You argue that these conditions were incurred as a result of your exposure to the rocket attacks and IED explosion in Afghanistan. Unfortunately, the Board disagreed with your rationale for relief. In making their findings, the Board substantially concurred with the advisory opinion in your case. Section 1413a of Title 10, United States Code, provides the statutory authority for payment of CRSC. Based on procedures and criteria prescribed by the Secretary of Defense, it allows for payment of CRSC for combat-related disabilities incurred as a direct result of armed conflict, while engaged in hazardous service, in the performance of duty under conditions simulating war, or through an instrumentality of war. In addition, CRSC may be awarded if a disability is attributable to an injury for which a Purple Heat was awarded. The Office of the Under Secretary of Defense issued a Directive Type Memorandum on 27 April 2004 that provided guidance on CRSC. Additionally, Department of Defense Regulation 7000.14-R (Financial Management Regulation) also addresses CRSC by stating “Determinations of whether a disability is combat-related for CRSC will be based on the preponderance of available documentary information where quality of information is more important than quantity. All relevant documentary information is to be weighed in relation to known facts and circumstances, and determinations will be made on the basis of credible, objective documentary information in the records as distinguished from personal opinion, speculation, or conjecture.” In your case, the Board concluded the preponderance of the evidence does not support a finding that your claimed disability conditions qualify for CRSC based on armed conflict or instrumentality of war. The Board disagreed with your arguments that the CRSC Board was holding you to a higher evidentiary standard than preponderance by examining whether there was any substantiating evidence to corroborate your assertions of exposure to rocket attacks and an IED explosion. In the Board’s opinion, this evaluation of the evidence is required by the applicable regulations that direct CRSC decisions be made on the basis of credible and objective documentary information. While the Board agrees with your argument that there appears to be no contradictory medical evidence to your assertions of rocket attacks and an IED explosion, the Board determined that these medical documents were based entirely on your assertions. In the Board’s opinion, in order to meet the “credible, objective document information requirement” directed in the regulations, there must be some credible corroboration to your assertions of the origins of your injury, e.g. medical record entries at the time of injury, chain of command statements, etc. In your case, the Board found no such evidence to be able to ascertain the credibility of your assertions. Absent such evidence, the Board determined that the preponderance of the evidence did support a finding that your claimed disability conditions were incurred as a result of armed conflict or due to an instrumentality of war. Accordingly, the Board found insufficient evidence of error or injustice to warrant a change to your record. The Board determined that your personal appearance, with or without counsel, would not materially add to their understanding of the issues involved. Therefore, the Board determined that a personal appearance was not necessary and considered your case based on the evidence of record. You are entitled to have the Board reconsider its decision upon submission of new matters, which will require you to complete and submit a new DD Form 149. New matters are those not previously presented to or considered by the Board. In this regard, it is important to keep in mind that a presumption of regularity attaches to all official records. Consequently, when applying for a correction of an official naval record, the burden is on the applicant to demonstrate the existence of probable material error or injustice. Sincerely, 7/23/2021 Deputy Director