DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDS 701 S. COURTHOUSE ROAD, SUITE 1001 ARLINGTON, VA 22204-2490 Docket No. 1053-17 SEP 11 2017 Dear This is in reference to your application for correction of your naval record pursuant to the provisions of 10 USC 1552. A three-member panel of the Board for Correction ofNaval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 17 August 2017. The names and votes of the members of the panel will be furnished upon request. 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 application, together with all material submitted in support thereof, your naval record and applicable statutes, regulations and policies. A review of your record shows you entered active duty with the Navy in March 1975 and served until your retirement on 30 November 1994. In 2016, the Board ofVeterans Appeal granted you a service connected disability rating for Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD). You subsequently filed for Combat Related Special Compensation (CRSC) for your PTSD condition but were denied by the CRSC Board for Jack ofevidence that your diagnosis was caused by a specific combat related event. Upon your request for reconsideration, the CRSC Board again denied your application for the same reason on 22 September 2016. The Board carefully considered your arguments that your PTSD diagnosis qualifies for CRSC. Under the DOD guidance, in order to qualify for CRSC, your qualifying disability or disabilities must be incurred as a direct result of armed conflict. Incurring a disability during a period of war or in an area of armed conflict or while participating in combat operation is not sufficient to qualify for CRSC. A service member must be engaged with a hostile or belligerent which result in the disability. The Board examined the three incidents you provided as the basis for your PTSD condition and applied it against the DOD guidance. First, you claim that you developed PTSD after an Iranian vessel shot a round near a Naval vessel on which you were embarked. You assert that it was the first time you were in "real combat" and it "freaked" you out. The Board concluded this incident failed to meet the "direct result of armed conflict" criteria. In the Board's opinion, you were not "engaged" with a hostile or belligerent when you developed PTSD. The DOD guidance makes it clear that incurring a disability in an area of armed conflict or while participating in combat operations is insufficient to qualify for CRSC. The Board was unable to find evidence that you were directly engaged with the Iranian Navy vessel when it fired a round. A comparison would be receiving indirect fire while in a combat zone. An individual receiving indirect fire is not directly engaged with the enemy but simply exposed to enemy random fire while operating in a combat zone. Countless number of service members are routinely exposed to such hazards while operating in a combat zone and many develop PTSD as a result. The Board concluded Congress and DOD did not intend to include disabilities incurred during such incidents when a service member is not directly engaged with the enemy. Doing so would lead to a slippery slope that would result in the awarding of CRSC in cases where service members were simply operating in an area of armed conflict. Using the Board's rationale, you would be granted CRSC in your situation had you been firing a weapon at the Iranian vessel and were in imminent danger ofthe return fire. Under your rationale, every service member onboard the ship would qualify for CRSC, provided they also developed PTSD from the incident, despite the fact the there is no evidence the ship was under direct fire or anyone was in any actual danger of injury. The Board determined this definition ofengaging the enemy was too broad to meet the DOD guidance. Second, you assert that an incident involving M08 mine and your vessel in the Strait of Hormuz also qualifies for CRSC. The Board again disagreed with your rationale for relief. The Board concluded that you were not engaged with the enemy when your ship maneuvered to avoid striking the mine. In the Board's opinion, an inanimate object does not qualify as a hostile or belligerent under the DOD guidelines. Areas of combat are full ofdangerous objects that have the potential to cause serious injury. Service members in combat areas are routinely exposed to dangers such as improvised explosive devices (IED), land mines, unspent munitions, and other hazards ofoperating in an area ofarmed conflict. The Board determined none ofthese would qualify for CRSC under the DOD guidance because the requirement for engagement with a hostile or belligerent is not met. In your case, ifthe mine were somehow being remotely directed toward your vessel by the enemy, the Board could draw a nexus that an engagement with a hostile or belligerent had occurred. Similarly, under the Board's rationale, an IED being remotely exploded as a vehicle passes would qualify for CRSC should an injury result. However, the Board was unable to reach a conclusion that almost striking an inanimate explosive device that is floating in a body of water qualifies as engaging with a hostile or belligerent. Third, you assert your negative experience of being airlifted by a Navy helicopter qualifies for CRSC. Unfortunately, the Board also disagreed with this basis for relief. You provided no facts that you were engaged with a hostile or belligerent when this incident occurred. This led the Board to conclude that you do not qualify under the DOD armed conflict criteria. The Board also considered whether this could be considered as engaging in hazardous service and concluded it could not since there was no evidence it was combat related. In the Board's opinion, the incident you describe falls squarely in the definition of participating in combat operations. Under the DOD guidance, simply participating in combat operations is insufficient to warrant CRSC. Accordingly, the Board was unable to find an error or injustice warranting a correction to your record and denied your application. It is regretted that the circumstances of your case are such that favorable action cannot be taken at this time. You are entitled to have the Board reconsider its decision upon the submission of new and material evidence. New evidence is evidence not previously 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 ofprobable material error or injustice. Sincerely, Executive Director