DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY 

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

DocketNo. 1982-17 
OCT 09 2017 

Dear , 

This is in reference to your application for correction ofyour naval record pursuant to the 
provisions of 10 use 1552. 

A three-member panel ofthe Board for Correction ofNaval Records, sitting in executive session, 
considered your application on 31 August 2017. The names and votes ofthe 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, relevant portions ofyour naval record and 
applicable statutes, regulations and policies. 

A review of your record shows you entered active duty with the Navy in September 1956 and 
served until your transfer to the Fleet Reserve. In 2009, the Department ofVeterans Affairs 
issued you a service connected disability rating for tinnitus. Based on this rating, you requested 
Combat Related Special Compensation (CRSC) for your tinnitus claiming it was incurred in the 
performance ofduty under conditions simulating war. Your request was denied by the CRSC 
Board on 20 December 2016 due to a lack of evidence showing your condition was caused by a 
specific combat related event. You applied for reconsideration adding hazardous service as an 
additional basis. This request was also denied by the CRSC Board again citing a lack ofa nexus 
to a specific combat related event. 

The Board carefully considered your arguments that you deserve CRSC based on your military 
service onboard submarines. You assert that you suffered your condition due to loud engine 
noise, steam leaks, and pressure changes during at least two patrols in which Expeditionary 
Medals were awarded to you. Unfortunately, the Board disagreed with your rationale for relief. 

The Board determined you did not meet the criteria for CRSC for performance ofduty under 
conditions simulating war or hazardous duty. The Board has routinely held that in order to 
qualify for CRSC under performance ofduty under conditions simulating war or hazardous duty 
there must be a specific combat related element present when an injury or disability is incurred. 

The Board determined, by the title of the legislation, that Congress intended to compensate 
service members who were injured as a result ofcombat. Congress relies on the Department of 
Defense to issue guidance on when an individual qualifies for CRSC. In applying that guidance 
to your case, the Board concluded that your participation in combat operations, by itself, is not 
sufficient to qualify for CRSC since there is no specific combat related nexus to your condition. 
You describe service onboard a submarine as the basis for awarding CRSC. The Board 
determined this describes participating in combat operations which does not qualify for CRSC 
without an additional element ofactual combat. While that combat element can be simulated, in 
your case, there was no evidence you were engaged in duties that was simulating combat. The 
very nature ofmilitary service involves engaging in duties that in some way simulate war. To 
interpret the guidance to include all military activities creates a situation where all service 
members, who incur a disability on active duty, would qualify for CRSC. The Board determined 
this is too broad an interpretation and concluded there must be a specific combat nexus to routine 
combat operation to qualify. An example where you may qualify under this section would be 
where the Navy is simulating an attack on your submarine by an enemy combatant and it causes 
an injury due to the effects ofthe simulated attack. Similarly, engaging in hazardous duty also 
requires a combat element to qualify for CRSC. In your case the Board determined you do not 
qualify under that provision for two reasons: one, your submarine duty is not inherently 
hazardous enough to qualify as "hazardous duty" and, two, there was no combat element 
associated with your duty even ifit could be considered hazardous duty. Accordingly, the Board 
was unable to find an error or injustice warranting a correction to your record and denied your 
application. 

Regarding your request for a personal appearance, the Board determined that a personal 
appearance with or without counsel will not materially add to their understanding ofthe issue(s) 
involved. Therefore, the Board determined that a personal appearance was not necessary and 
considered your case based on the evidence ofrecord. 

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 ofregularity attaches to all 
official records. Consequently, when applying for a correction ofan official naval record, the 
burden is on the applicant to demonstrate the existence ofprobable material error or injustice. 

Sincerely, 

Executive Director