DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY 
BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDS 
701 S. COURTHOUSE ROAD, SUITE 1001 
ARLINGTON, VA 22204-2490 
Docket No. 504-17 
SEP 11 2017 


Dear

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

Although your application was not filed in a timely manner, the Board found it in the interest of justice to waive the statute of limitations and consider your case on its merits. A three-member panel ofthe Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 10 August 2017. 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 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 ofyour record shows that you entered active duty with the Navy in January 1974. You injured your back exiting an aircraft and were treated on 8 January 1975. You eventually retired from the Navy in 1994. In May 2007, the Combat Related Special Compensation (CRSC) Board denied your request for CRSC based on your lumbar spine degenerative disc disease. 

The Board carefully considered your arguments that you were wrongfully denied CRSC by the CRSC Board based on their failure to consider your record. Unfortunately, the Board disagreed with your rationale for relief. The Board examined your record, including the record that you rely on as evidence for CRSC, to determine whether your injury met the criteria laid out in the Department of Defense guidelines. You cite your 8 January 1975 treatment record as evidence that you deserve CRSC. However, the Board was not convinced that the act ofexiting an aircraft as part ofroutine training qualifies as "armed conflict." Department of Defense guidelines specifically exclude injuries suffered while simply participating in combat operations and require that a service member be engaged with hostile forces to qualify under this category. Additionally, the Board was not convinced your injury was due to hazardous service, performance ofduty under conditions simulating war, or due to an instrumentality ofwar. Under each ofthese categories that qualify for CRSC, specific criteria must be met to substantiate a disability was incurred incident to service related to one of these categories. The Board concluded that the act of exiting of an aircraft, under normal circumstances, at the completion of a session of flight training, does not meet any of the categories for CRSC since it is not considered hazardous duty, you were not simulating war, and the injury was not caused by the aircraft. 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 of probable material error or injustice. 

Sincerely, 

Executive Director