IN THE CASE OF:	  

		BOARD DATE:	  8 August 2013

		DOCKET NUMBER:  AR20120017285 


THE BOARD CONSIDERED THE FOLLOWING EVIDENCE:

1.  Application for correction of military records (with supporting documents provided, if any).

2.  Military Personnel Records and advisory opinions (if any).


THE APPLICANT'S REQUEST, STATEMENT, AND EVIDENCE:

1.  The applicant requests award of combat-related special compensation (CRSC).

2.  The applicant defers to counsel.

3.  The applicant provides a legal brief and supporting appendices prepared by counsel.

COUNSEL'S REQUEST, STATEMENT AND EVIDENCE:

1.  Counsel requests correction of the applicant's records to show he qualifies for CRSC.

2.  Counsel states that a physical evaluation board (PEB) concluded the applicant suffered from combat-related post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) on 23 May 2007.  As a result, the applicant was medically retired from the Army on 6 June 2007 due to PTSD.  On 31 August 2007, the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) determined the applicant's PTSD was service-connected with a disability rating of 50 percent.  On 25 May 2010, the VA increased his disability rating from 50 percent to 70 percent.

3.  Counsel also states the applicant applied to the Department of the Army CRSC Board for CRSC due to PTSD on 9 November 2011 under the provisions of Title 10, U.S. Code, section 1413a.  On 15 December 2011, "the CRSC Board erroneously denied [the applicant's] request for CRSC…on the grounds that the PEB/MEB [medical evaluation board] (MEB) narrative allegedly 'did not specifically describe the accident or injury' that caused [the applicant's] PTSD."  On 19 March 2012, the applicant applied for reconsideration which included new evidence in the form of his retirement orders which confirmed his PTSD was caused by a combat-related event.  On 5 April 2012, the CRSC Board denied the applicant's request for reconsideration, noting that it could not "verify a specific combat-related event or combat award which supports the VA's determination" of PTSD.  On 24 May 2012, the applicant filed a second request for reconsideration which argued that the PEB's conclusion that his PTSD was combat-related should be considered persuasive and which further detailed various combat-related events leading to his PTSD.  On 11 June 2012, the CRSC Board denied the applicant's second request for reconsideration, noting that no new evidence had been submitted.

4.  Counsel contends:

* the applicant fulfills the preliminary requirements for CRSC issued by the Department of Defense (DOD)
* the applicant fulfills the requirements for CRSC under Title 10, U.S. Code, section 1413a
* the applicant is entitled to retired pay
* the applicant incurred combat-related disabilities as a direct result of armed conflict
* the PEB confirmed that the applicant incurred PTSD in the line of duty (LOD) as the direct result of armed conflict
* the CRSC Board's denials were in error and the applicant's military record should be corrected

5.  Counsel provides:

* two DD Forms 214 (Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty)
* two DD Forms 215 (Correction to DD Form 214)
* DA Form 3947 (MEB Proceedings)
* DA Form 199 (PEB Proceedings)
* VA Rating Decisions
* MEB Narrative Summary
* memorandum for the President of the PEB
* self-authored statement (applicant's)
* DD Form 261 (Report of Investigation – LOD and Misconduct Status)
* two memoranda for record
* three VA Forms 2507 (Compensation and Pension Exam Report
* retirement orders

CONSIDERATION OF EVIDENCE:

1.  The applicant enlisted in the Regular Army on 17 September 1999.  He completed training and was awarded military occupational specialty 31B (Military Police).  He was honorably released from active duty (REFRAD) and transferred to the U.S. Army Reserve (USAR) Control Group (Reinforcement) on 16 September 2004.  During this period of active duty, he deployed to Kuwait/Iraq in support of Operation Iraqi Freedom from 24 March 2003 through 16 March 2004.  His record is void of any evidence showing he was diagnosed with PTSD or any other medical or psychiatric conditions during this period of service.

2.  U.S. Army Human Resources Command (HRC) Orders M-08-602119, dated 29 August 2006, show the applicant was ordered to active duty for mobilization in support of Operation Iraqi Freedom for a period not to exceed 545 days with a reporting date of 5 November 2006.

3.  His records contain a DD Form 4 (Enlistment/Reenlistment Document – Armed Forces of the United States) and DD Form 1966 (Record of Military Processing – Armed Forces of the United States) which show he enlisted in the Texas Army National Guard (TXARNG) on 19 September 2006 for a period of 6 years.

4.  A review of the career management notes posted in the HRC Soldier Management System shows the applicant was reported as a "no show" at the mobilization site as of 6 November 2006.  As a result, an investigation was initiated to determine why he failed to report for duty in compliance with his mobilization orders.  Attempts were made to contact the applicant via telephone, email, and a warning letter was sent by certified mail to the most current telephone number and addresses in the database.

5.  On 17 November 2006, the applicant called his career manager regarding the certified warning letter he received.  The applicant stated he was not aware of the mobilization orders, but confirmed the mailing address on file was accurate.  He stated he did not receive the mobilization orders and that he had joined the ARNG in mid-August 2006.  The career manager informed the applicant that if he joined the ARNG after his mobilization orders were published (29 August 2006), then he still had an obligation with the USAR Individual Ready Reserve (IRR) and he would have to honor the mobilization orders.  He was further informed that he would be recorded as having failed to report as ordered if he joined the ARNG after the published date and chose not to report.

6.  On 21 November 2006, the applicant's career manager was informed that the applicant's contract for enlistment in the ARNG was signed on 14 September 2006.  He then coordinated with a representative of the ARNG to process orders discharging the applicant from the ARNG.

7.  On 5 December 2006, the applicant was informed that he would be discharged from the ARNG, reinstated in the IRR, and given a reporting date of 14 January 2007.  The applicant was asked if he would report for duty and he said he would.

8.  TXARNG Orders 353-1017, dated 19 December 2006, show the applicant was discharged from the ARNG and assigned to the USAR Control Group (Reinforcement) effective 4 December 2006.  These orders further show the catalyst for this action was the applicant's mobilization by the USAR prior to enlistment in the ARNG.  A National Guard Bureau Form 22 (Report of Separation and Record of Service) was rendered for the period 14 September through 4 December 2006 which shows he was discharged from the ARNG as the result of an erroneous enlistment.

9.  HRC Orders M-08-602119A01, dated 22 December 2006, amended the applicant's mobilization orders to show his new reporting date as no later than 14 January 2007 and projected REFRAD no later than 11 July 2008.  The applicant reported for mobilization processing accordingly.

10.  On 28 February 2007, the applicant was admitted to the Department of Mental Health, William Beaumont Army Medical Center (WBAMC), El Paso, TX, on referral from Community Mental Health Services, Fort Bliss, TX, due to suicidal ideation arising in context of a pending second deployment to Iraq.  As a result, an MEB was initiated.

11.  HRC Orders A-03-706742, dated 22 March 2007, show the applicant was retained on active duty and assigned to Company A, Medical Retention Battalion (subsequently renamed as the Warrior Transition Battalion), Fort Bliss, to voluntarily participate in the Reserve Component Holdover Medical Retention Processing Program for completion of medical care and treatment.  These orders also show a special exception was granted to issue the applicant a DD Form 214 upon final REFRAD from the involuntary provisions of Title 10, U.S. Code, section 12302, and reversion to the voluntary provisions of Title 10, U.S. Code, section 12301(D).  In accordance with DOD Instruction (DODI) 1332.38, the applicant would be entered into the Physical Disability Evaluation System (PDES) for disability processing at the earliest determination or once it was determined that he was unable to return to full military duty within 1 year of the diagnosis of his medical condition.  Early separation or REFRAD would be required upon completion of medical care and treatment or for separation by reason of physical disability.

12.  The applicant's records contain and counsel provides a DA Form 3947, dated 8 May 2007, which shows an MEB was conducted by the Department of Mental Health, WBAMC, to consider the applicant's case.  The Chief of Inpatient Psychiatry rendered a narrative summary of the MEB wherein he noted, in part:

	a.  Chief Complaint:  "I can't go back there.  I was planning on shooting myself on the range tomorrow.  I would rather die on my terms than waiting for it every second of the day."

	b.  History of Present Illness:  On the day of admission, the applicant had been participating in Soldier Readiness Preparation for overseas deployment to Iraq during which he related he had been previously deployed and had significant worries and concerns.  He was consequently referred to Community Mental Health Services and he indicated a history of PTSD symptoms subsequent to his initial deployment to Iraq.  He stated his PTSD symptoms had been markedly exacerbated since receiving orders in November 2006 for a second deployment to Iraq, leading to current suicidal ideation with the plan of shooting himself on a scheduled training live-fire range.

	c.  The applicant related that he was deployed in support of Operation Iraqi Freedom from March 2003 to March 2004 and performed the duties of a military policeman, performing in excess of 300 daily patrols in the area in and around Tikrit with a vast majority of those missions involving hostile fire inclusive of small arms and rocket-propelled grenade (RPG) attacks, and episodic improvised explosive device (IED) incidents.  However, the most notable and traumatic was an incident wherein his unit came under fire while on patrol and a close friend and team member was killed by an RPG.  He assisted with this service member's immediate care until he was air evacuated.  He noted the visual contact he had with this mortally-wounded friend with marked distress.

	d.  The applicant stated he had recurrent nightmares of this incident and episodic daytime flashbacks of the face of the aforementioned team member.  He noted that shortly after his return from his initial deployment from Iraq, he reached his expiration of term of service and did not receive any consequent out-patient follow-up treatment.  He noted that he'd had a steady escalation of PTSD symptoms since receiving his current deployment orders in November 2006, culminating in his most recent suicidal ideation.  He noted nightmares for the first 4 to 6 months after his return from his initial deployment which gradually subsided.  However, he noted marked sleep disturbance with repeated nightmares of the aforementioned incident, marked startle response to loud stimuli, and marked hypervigilance after receiving his activation orders in November 2006.  He affirmed having a depressed, anxious, and irritable mood which was a change from his baseline.  He also affirmed social withdrawal, emotional numbing, daytime flashbacks of the incident (most notably the face and eyes of his dying team member), and a moderate increase in alcohol consumption.  He denied manic or psychotic symptoms.  He related his fear that his return to Iraq would further exacerbate the symptoms and would result in him being a liability to his unit and himself.  He related that for the 2 days prior to his admission, he had been contemplating suicide as a viable alternative to returning to Iraq.

	e.  Past Psychiatric History:  The applicant related brief out-patient counseling in childhood after a one-time incident of sexual molestation by an older male at 8 years of age.  He also related brief out-patient marital counseling prior to his past divorce.

	f.  Hospital Course:  The applicant was admitted and placed on close observation initially to ensure his safety.  On admission, he was noted as having moderate to severe depressed mood and anxiety symptoms consistent with a diagnosis of PTSD.  Due to the severity of his symptoms, a plan was established for initiation of MEB action.

	g.  Present Condition and Prognosis:  The applicant continued to manifest mild to moderate PTSD symptoms.  He denied current suicidal or homicidal ideation and denied auditory or visual hallucinations.  However, he affirmed his resolution to suicide should he find himself deploying to Iraq.

	h.  Diagnosis:

		(1)  Axis I:  309.81 Chronic PTSD.  Stress – severe, prior deployment with severe combat and pending return to combat.  Predisposition – none.  Impairment for military functioning – severe.  Impairment for social and occupational functioning – marked.  LOD – yes.  Existed prior to service (EPTS) – no.

		(2)  Axis II:  none.

		(3)  Axis III:  none.

		(4)  Axis IV:  occupational stressors.

		(5)  Axis V:  55

	i.  Plan/Recommendations:  The MEB opined that the applicant was unfit for further service under the provisions of Army Regulation 40-501 (Standards of Medical Fitness) and referred him to a PEB for consideration for separation from the military service.  It was further opined that he had received the maximum benefit from hospitalization; he was mentally competent and able to manage his own finances.  It was recommended that he continue in out-patient treatment at the VA hospital nearest to his home.

	j.  The DA Form 3947 shows the MEB determined his diagnosis of PTSD was incurred while entitled to base pay, was not EPTS, and was permanently aggravated by service.  The applicant indicated he did not desire to continue on active duty under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-40 (Physical Evaluation for Retention, Retirement, or Separation).

	k.  The applicant agreed with the findings and recommendation of the MEB.

13.  On 15 May 2007, the applicant rendered a letter to the President of the PEB wherein he related a synopsis of his experiences in Iraq and the adverse impact they had on his psyche which culminated in him being in a constant state of fear and paranoia, both during and after his deployment.  The applicant's records contain and counsel provides a DA Form 199 which shows a PEB convened at Fort Lewis, WA, to consider the applicant's case on 23 May 2007.  The PEB considered his condition under the criteria of VA Schedule of Rating Disabilities (VASRD) code 9411 (PTSD).

	a.  The disability description noted he had "[s]uicidal ideation due to PTSD (10 A/C in theater statement) [statement not present in his record or provided], arising in context of post deployment and combat situations (verified), aggravated by pending deployment.  Symptom manifestations include hyperstartle and hypervigilance, anxious, irritable mood with recurrent intrusive memories and dreams.  Stabilized with Risperidone and Sertraline, performing well in medical hold with no evidence of social or industrial impairment.  Soldier working full-time in Garrison.  Return to active duty would exacerbate PTSD symptoms, physical profile prohibits all functional military activities.  Competent for pay and records."  As a result, he was recommended for a disability rating of 0 percent.

	b.  The PEB determined the applicant's functional limitations in maintaining the appropriate level of adaptability and stamina caused by physical impairment made him medically unfit to perform the duties required of a Soldier of his rank and primary military occupational specialty (MOS).

	c.  The PEB advised the applicant that Soldiers with a disability rating of less than 30 percent and with less than 20 years of active Federal service, Army Regulation 635-40 require separation from the service with severance pay.  He was also advised that he should contact a VA counselor to learn about available benefits requiring his initiation since he had service-connected medical conditions.  He was further advised that a member of an Armed Force may not be required to sign a statement relating to the origin, incurrence, or aggravation of a disease or injury that he/she has.

	d.  The PEB concluded that the applicant was physically unfit for further service and recommended a combined disability rating of 0 percent and separation with severance pay if otherwise qualified.

	e.  Item 10 of this form shows the PEB indicated that if retired because of disability, the board recommended finding that:  (A) the applicant's retirement is based on disability from injury or disease received in the LOD as a direct result of armed conflict or caused by an instrumentality of war and incurring in the LOD during a period of was as defined by law and (B) the disability did result from a combat-related injury as defined in Title 26, U.S. Code, section 104.

14.  On 24 May 2007, the applicant concurred with the findings and recommendation of the PEB and waived a formal hearing of his case.

15.  The applicant's discharge orders are not available for review, but his record contains and counsel provides a DD Form 214 which shows he was ordered to active duty in support of Operation Iraqi Freedom on 14 January 2007 and was honorably discharged due to disability with severance pay in the amount of $27,885.60 on 22 June 2007.  There is no indication that he deployed during this period of active duty service.

16.  On 27 March 2010, the applicant petitioned the Physical Disability Board of Review (PDBR) for a review of the disability rating awarded to him in conjunction with his medical separation.  He noted he was assigned a disability rating of less than 50 percent for PTSD and contended that he should be entitled to a higher rating in accordance with a recent class action notice.

17.  The PDRB noted the applicant was medically separated from the Army in 2007 after 7 years of combined service.  The medical basis for his separation was PTSD.  He deployed to Iraq from March 2003 to March 2004.  He was diagnosed with PTSD after a psychiatric hospital admission for suicidal ideation in 2007.  Criterion A (paragraph 13e above) combat stressors were documented and the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, Fourth Edition (DSM-IV), criteria for an axis 1 diagnosis of PTSD were met.  He was treated with medication and psychotherapy with some improvement of symptoms.  He was able to function in an administrative capacity during this period but was placed on a permanent S-3 physical profile (psychiatric) and denied weapons access.  He was not deployable and could not meet the operational requirements of his MOS which resulted in his referral to an MEB and subsequent PEB as medically unacceptable for retention standards.  No other conditions were forwarded for consideration by the MEB.  The informal PEB adjudicated PTSD as the single unfitting condition, rated at 0 percent in accordance with DODI 1332.39(E2.A1.5).  The applicant did not appeal and was thus medically separated with a 0-percent disability rating.

18.  The PDRB noted the applicant's PEB rating was rendered prior to promulgation of the National Defense Authorization Act 2008 mandate for DOD adherence to VASRD section 4.129.  In accordance with DODI 6040.44 and DOD guidance (which applies current VASRD section 4.129 to all board cases), the PDRB was obligated to recommend a minimum 50-percent PTSD rating for a retroactive 6-month period of placement on the Temporary Disability Retirement List (TDRL).  The PDRB must then determine the most appropriate fit with VASRD section 4.130 criteria at 6 months for its permanent rating recommendation.  The relevant post-separation evidence in this case consists of VA psychiatric compensation and pension examinations performed at 6 weeks and 9 months after separation.

19.  The PDRB noted the applicant reported suicidal ideation in 2007 after receipt of deployment orders and related an escalation of PTSD-type symptoms (which had been unreported and were abating following his 2003-2004 deployment).  His condition 3 months before separation was characterized in the narrative summary as persistent mild to moderate PTSD symptoms.  His previous suicidal ideation had resolved on discharge from the hospital, although he continued to insist suicide was preferable to redeployment to Iraq.

20.  Following his 6-week and 9-month reevaluations, all members of the PDRB agreed that the section 4.130 criteria for a rating higher than 50 percent were not met at the time of separation and therefore the minimum 50-percent TDRL rating (as explained above) was applicable.  After due deliberation, considering the totality of the evidence and mindful of VASRD section 4.3 (reasonable doubt), the PDRB recommended a permanent PTSD disability rating of 30 percent.

21.  On 16 December 2010, the Deputy Assistant Secretary of the Army (DASA) for the Army Review Boards Agency (ARBA) approved the recommendation of the PDRB to constructively place the applicant on the TDRL at 50-percent disability for 6 months effective the date of his original medical separation for disability with severance pay and then re-characterize his separation as a permanent disability retirement with the combined disability rating of 30 percent following that 6-month period.  The DASA directed that all Department of the Army records of the applicant be corrected accordingly no later than 120 days from the date of the memorandum.  Among the directed corrections were:

	a.  providing a correction to the applicant's separation document showing he was separated by reason of temporary disability effective the date of the original medical separation for disability with severance pay and

	b.  providing orders showing the applicant was retired with permanent disability effective the day following the 6-month TDRL period.

22.  On 10 March 2011, the Chief, Operations Division, U.S. Army Physical Disability Agency (USAPDA), Washington, DC, rendered a letter informing the applicant about the corrections of his disability separation records and retirement benefits as a result of approval of his petition to the PDRB by the ARBA DASA.  In part, he was told his original separation orders had been revoked and orders placing him on the TDRL had been published and made retroactive to the day he separated from the Army.  Additionally, orders removing him from the TDRL and permanently retiring him were published by the USAPDA and copies of these orders were enclosed with the letter.

	a.  Headquarters, Fort Bliss, Orders 061-0026, dated 2 March 2011, revoked the applicant's original discharge orders, dated 22 June 2007.

	b.  Headquarters, Fort Bliss, Orders 062-0006, dated 3 March 2011, show the applicant was retroactively separated because of physical disability incurred while entitled to basic pay and under conditions that permitted his placement on the TDRL with an effective date of retirement of 22 June 2007 with a disability rating of 50 percent.  These orders also contain the following entries:

		(1)  "Disability is based on injury or disease received in the line of duty as a direct result of armed conflict or cause by an instrumentality of war and incurred in the line of duty during a period of war as defined by law:  Yes."

		(2)  "Disability resulted from a combat related injury as defined in 26 USC 104 [Title 26, U.S. Code, section 104]:  Yes."

	c.  USAPDA Orders DO63-27, dated 4 March 2011, show the applicant was retroactively removed from the TDRL effective 22 December 2007 and permanently retired with a disability rating of 30 percent.  These orders also contain the following entries:

		(1)  "Disability is based on injury or disease received in LOD as a direct Result of Armed Conflict or caused by an instrumentality of war period [sic] as defined by law:  Not Applicable."

		(2)  "Disability resulted from a combat related injury as defined in 26 USC 104 [Title 26, U.S. Code, section 104]:  Not Applicable."

23.  On 21 November 2011, the applicant submitted a claim to the HRC CRSC requesting CRSC based upon his contention that his condition of PTSD is combat-related.  On 15 December 2011, the CRSC Branch denied the applicant's claim for CRSC based on the fact his PEB/MEB narrative does not specifically describe the accident or injury which caused his PTSD condition.  Additionally, he was informed that there wasn't any supporting documentation in his claim which confirmed the PEB/MEB's determination that this disability is attributed to a specific combat-related event.  The applicant was advised to submit supporting documentation that links his PTSD to a specific combat-related event under the criteria of armed conflict, simulation war, or instrumentality of war as defined by CRSC program guidance.  He was also referred to the CRSC website where he could find more information about what is considered to be a combat-related condition.  The applicant submitted requests for reconsideration wherein he emphasized the fact that his TDRL orders further corroborated his PTSD was combat-related.  These requests were denied on 5 April 2012 and 11 June 2012.  In its 11 June 2012 letter, the CRSC Branch stipulated that this was the final disapproval.  It further indicated CRSC had been previously requested and no new evidence was provided to show a specific combat-related event caused the condition.  As a result, he was informed the decision was final and he was referred to the Army Board for Correction of Military Records to seek potential relief.

24.  Counsel provides:

	a.  VA Rating Decisions, dated 31 August 2007, 13 May 2008, and 25 May 2010, which show the VA awarded the applicant service connection for PTSD incurred in combat with an ultimate disability rating of 70 percent;

	b.  a DD Form 261, dated 4 May 2007, which shows an LOD investigation determined the applicant's suicidal ideation had resulted from being exposed to unusual stress during deployment to Iraq and was therefore in the LOD; and

	c.  VA Forms 2507, dated 17 August 2007, 10 March 2008, and 17 May 2010, which show he underwent an evaluation by VA healthcare providers to evaluate the level of his PTSD for the purpose of determining a disability percentage rating.
25.  CRSC, as established by Title 10, U.S. Code, section 1413a, as amended, states that eligible members are retired veterans with combat-related injuries who meet all of the following criteria:

* Active, Reserve, or National Guard with 20 years of creditable service, or permanent medical retiree, or Temporary Early Retirement Authority retiree
* receiving military retired pay
* have a 10 percent or greater VA-rated injury
* military retired pay is reduced by VA disability payments (VA Waiver)
* an individual must be able to provide documentary evidence that the injury was a result of one of the following –

* training that simulates war (e.g., exercises, field training)
* hazardous duty (e.g., flight, diving, parachute duty)
* an instrumentality of war (e.g., combat vehicles, weapons, Agent Orange)
* armed conflict (e.g., gunshot wounds (Purple Heart), punji stick injuries)

26.  The Under Secretary of Defense for Military Personnel Policy provided policy guidance for processing CRSC appeals.  This guidance states that in order for a condition to be considered combat related, there must be evidence of the condition having a direct, causal relationship to war or the simulation of war.

27.  Army Regulation 635-40 states the term "instrumentality of war" refers to a device primarily designed for military service and intended for use in such service at the time of the occurrence of the injury.  It may also be a device not designed primarily for military service if use of or occurrence involving such a device subjects the individual to a hazard peculiar to military service.  This use or occurrence differs from the use or occurrence under similar circumstances in civilian pursuits.

28.  Title 26, U.S. Code section 104, defines a "combat-related injury" as a personal injury or sickness:  (A) which is incurred – (i) as a direct result of armed conflict, (ii) while engaged in extra-hazardous service, or (iii) under conditions simulating war; or (B) which is caused by an instrumentality of war.

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS:

1.  The CRSC criteria are specifically for those military retirees who have combat-related disabilities.  Incurring disabilities while in a theater of operations or in training exercises is not, in and of itself, sufficient to grant a military retiree CRSC.  The military retiree must show that the disability was incurred while engaged in combat, while performing duties simulating combat conditions, or while performing especially hazardous duties such as parachuting or scuba diving.

2.  Upon reporting for mobilization processing, the applicant professed suicidal ideations and was referred to the PDES for disability processing.  Both his MEB and PEB noted that the catalyst for the manifestation of the applicant's suicidal ideations was his fear of having to deploy to Iraq again.  In fact, he stated, "I can't go back there.  I was planning on shooting myself on the range tomorrow.  I would rather die on my terms than waiting for it every second of the day."

3.  It was noted during the applicant's MEB and numerous subsequent statements rendered by himself and third parties that he both witnessed and experienced many hardships and hostilities.  However, the most notable and traumatic was an incident wherein his unit came under fire while on patrol and a close friend and team member was killed by an RPG.  He assisted with this service member's immediate care until he was air evacuated.  He noted the visual contact he had with this mortally-wounded friend with marked distress.
The applicant stated he had recurrent nightmares of this incident and episodic daytime flashbacks of the face of the aforementioned team member.  As a result, both the PEB and the VA determined the applicant's condition was a direct result of armed conflict or caused by an instrumentality of war.  This determination is therefore, properly reflected in the applicant's locally-issued orders removing him from the TDRL.

4.  It is accepted that this particular event served as a specific  combat-related incident with a direct, causal relationship to the applicant's condition; and as such fulfills the requirement for award of CRSC.  Therefore, is considered a sufficient basis for granting his request.

BOARD VOTE:

___X____  ___x____  ___x____  GRANT FULL RELIEF 

________  ________  ________  GRANT PARTIAL RELIEF 

________  ________  ________  GRANT FORMAL HEARING

________  ________  ________  DENY APPLICATION



BOARD DETERMINATION/RECOMMENDATION:

The Board determined the evidence presented is sufficient to warrant a recommendation for relief.  As a result, the Board recommends that all Department of the Army records of the individual concerned be corrected by showing his condition of PTSD meets the requirements for award of CRSC and paying him the appropriate entitlements.



      ___________x____________
               CHAIRPERSON
      
I certify that herein is recorded the true and complete record of the proceedings of the Army Board for Correction of Military Records in this case.
ABCMR Record of Proceedings (cont)                                         AR20120017285



3


ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


1

ABCMR Record of Proceedings (cont)                                         AR20120017285



2


ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


1