DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDS 701 S. COURTHOUSE ROAD, SUITE 1001 ARLINGTON, VA 22204-2490 Docket No. 7778-20 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 24 June 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 8 January 2021 along with your response to the opinion. A review of your record shows that you entered active duty with the Navy in January 2007. You deployed to Jordan in support of Operation Inherent Resolve in 2015 during which you participated in combat training as an Independent Duty Corpsman. It was during this period, you allegedly injured your back. You reported back pain over the next several years and underwent a L5-S1 posterior spinal instrumented fusion for your spondylolisthesis condition. However, after continuing to suffer pain symptoms in your back, a medical board diagnosed you with low back pain, Psuedoarthos, Lumbar Region Radiculopathy, and Lumbar Region Spondylolisthesis on 18 September 2018 and referred you to the Physical Evaluation Board (PEB). The PEB found you unfit for you low back pain and assigned you a 40% disability rating resulting in your placement on the Temporary Disability Retirement List (TDRL) effective 29 July 2019. Subsequent to you placement on the TDRL, you commenced your applications to the Combat Related Special Compensation (CRSC) Board. In each application, you claimed CRSC based on your assertion that your back injury was incurred while undergoing simulated combat during your 2015 training in Jordan. However, the CRSC Board twice denied your applications based on a failure to meet the standard of proof that your disability condition was incurred during a period of simulated war, combat operations, or armed conflict. The Board carefully considered your arguments that you deserve CRSC based on your assertions that your back condition was incurred during combat training in Jordan and medical records that record those assertions. You argue that contemporaneous medical records from your time in Jordan do not contain any reference to a combat related back injury since you were unable to input that information into your own medical record as the only medical provider at the location. Unfortunately, the Board disagreed with your rationale for relief. In making their findings, the Board substantially concurred with the advisory opinion 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) was issued that also addressed CRSC. In your case, the Board concluded the preponderance of the evidence does not support a finding that your back condition was incurred in the performance of duty under conditions simulating war. The Board agreed with the advisory opinion that your medical record documents that your back injury was, more likely than not, incurred during weightlifting rather than from simulated combat. The Board relied on the 8 June 2017 medical report in which you reported that you increased your workouts in 2015 in an attempt to lose weight and likely caused your back injury performing deadlifts and squats. As you pointed out, there is no mention of your injury occurring during simulated combat operations in that report with no plausible explanation why your provider did not include that important information in the report if you provided it. Additionally, the Board did not find your explanation of why your injury is not documented in your 2015 medical record persuasive. In the Board’s opinion, had you suffered a severe back injury as a result of simulated combat, it likely would have required treatment that would have been documented in your record. Absent corroboration of your assertions of the origins of your injury, the Board determined that your presence in a combat training environment was insufficient to reach the conclusion that you suffered your back injury as a result of the training. Based on the available evidence, the Board concluded that your back condition was, more likely than not, a chronic condition that was aggravated by your increased deadlifts and squats in 2015. Based on these factors, the Board determined that the CRSC Board decisions remain appropriate and relief was not merited in your case. Accordingly, the Board found insufficient evidence of error or injustice to warrant a change to your 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, 6/25/2021 Deputy Director