DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY 

BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVALRECORDS 
701 S. COURTHOUSE ROAD, SUITE 1001 
ARLINGTON, VA 22204-2490 

Docket No. 5610-16 

OCT 11 2016 

Dear , 

This is in reference to your application for correction of your naval record pursuant to the 
provisions of 1O USC 1552. 

A three-member panel ofthe Board for Correction ofNaval Records, sitting in executive session, 
considered your application on 22 September 2016. As directed by United States Court of 
Federal Claims Order 15-576C of22 June 2016 that remanded your case to this Board for 
consideration, your allegations oferror and injustice were reviewed in accordance with 
administrative regulations and procedures applicable to the proceedings ofthis Board. 
Documentary material considered by the Board consisted of your naval record and applicable 
statutes, regulations and policies. Additionally, the Board considered four advisory opinions that 
were provided to you for comment on 20 July 2016: 1. Office ofthe Chief ofNaval Operations 
!tr Ser 130Cl/16U0963 of8 Jul 2016; 2. Assistant Director, Military Compensation, OUSD 
(P&R)(MPP/Compensation) email of 13 Jul 2016; 3. Director, Secretary ofthe Navy Council of 
Review Boards !tr 1850 CORB: 20 of 6 Jul 16; and 4. DFAS Cleveland CRSC email of27 May 
2016. You were provided 30 days to comment and chose not to submit any matters for 
consideration as of the date of the Board session. 

A review ofyour record shows that you were injured while undergoing pre-deployment training 
in 2008 that resulted in your entry into the Disability Evaluation System (DES). While you were 
assigned to awaiting DES processing, you received per diem without meals and 
incidental expenses. In addition, you were not authorized per diem for dependent travel. On 4 
March 2011, the Physical Evaluation Board determined you were unfit for continued naval 
service with a combined disability rating of50% for radicular leg pain, right (20%), back pain 
(20% ), and radicular leg pain, left (10%). Subsequent to your placement on the Permanent 
Disability Retirement List, the Department of Veterans Affairs diagnosed you with PostTraumatic 
Stress Disorder (PTSD). Using this evidence, you filed for Combat Related Special 
Compensation (CRSC) and were denied on 14 February 2013. 

The Board carefully considered your claim for CRSC and per diem. Unfortunately, the Board 
did not find sufficient evidence to support relief in your case. In making their decision, the 
Board substantially concurred with the advisory opinions from the Office ofthe Chief ofNaval 
Operations, Assistant Director, Military Compensation, OUSD (P&R)(MPP/Compensation), and 
Director, Secretary ofthe Navy Council ofReview Boards. Specifically, the Board concluded 
that your PTSD condition did not qualify for CRSC since there was no evidence presented that 
showed that it was caused by simulated combat training. In addition, while the Board considered 
the DFAS and Director, Secretary of the Navy Council ofReview Boards opinions regarding the 
capping ofyour CRSC entitlements based on your years of qualifying service and tank, it 
determined it was not probative on the issue ofwhether your PTSD condition qualified for 
CRSC. Regarding your per diem claim, you presented no evidence to the Board to explain why 
you were entitled to per diem for travel ofyour dependents or more than the Govermnent Meal 
Rate while assigned to . Therefore, the Board determined that you were not 
authorized per diem in accordance with the Joint Federal Travel Regulation sections cited in the 
advisory opinion. Accordingly, the Board was unable to find an error or injustice warranting a 
correction to your record and denied your application. The names and votes of the members of 
the panel will be furnished upon request. 

It is regretted that the circumstances ofyour case are such that favorable action cannot be taken. 
You are entitled to have the Board reconsider its decision upon submission of new evidence 
within one year from the date ofthe Board's decision. New evidence is evidence not previously 
considered by the Board prior to making its decision in this case. 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, 


Executive Director