DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY 

BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS 

 
Application for the Correction of 
the Coast Guard Record of: 
 
                                                                                BCMR Docket No. 2005-089 
 
XXXXXXXXXXXXX. 
xxxxxxxxxxxxx BMCS (Ret.)  
   

 

 
 

FINAL DECISION 

 
Author:  Ulmer, D.  
 
 
This  proceeding  was  conducted  according  to  the  provisions  of  section  1552  of 
title  10  and  section  425  of  title  14  of  the  United  States  Code.    The  application  was 
docketed  on  April  8,  2005,  upon  receipt  of  the  applicant’s  completed  application  and 
military records.1 
 
 
members who were designated to serve as the Board in this case. 
 

This final decision, dated February 8, 2006, is signed by the three duly appointed 

APPLICANT’S REQUEST AND ALLEGATIONS 

 
 
 The  applicant  asked  the  Board  to  correct  his  Coast  Guard  military  record  by 
awarding  him  Combat-Related  Special  Compensation  (CRSC)2  at  100%  of  his  Depart-
ment of Veterans Affairs  (DVA) ratings.  The applicant stated on his CRSC application 
that the DVA rated his bilateral hearing loss and tinnitus as 60% disabling and his "loss 
of rectum, neurogenic bladder, and loss of use of a creative organ" as 100% disabling.  
 

                                                 
1   The Board first received the applicant's submissions on April 20, 2004.  The application was docketed 
after  the  Board  had  received  a  completed  application  and  exhaustion  of  administrative  remedies  had 
occurred.   
2  CRSC  is  a  recently  enacted  law  (2002)  that  allows  certain  retirees  to  receive  both  retired  pay  and 
disability compensation. To be eligible for combat related special compensation a retired member must 
have 20 years of active service and either a combat-related disability or a Purple Heart related disability 
that the DVA has rated to be at least 10% disabling. 

According  to  a  December  19,  2003,  letter  from  the  Commander,  Coast  Guard 
Personnel  Command  (CGPC),  the  applicant  has  DVA  ratings  as  follows:  100%  for 
malignant growths of the digestive system, 30% for arteriosclerosis heart disease, 20% 
for urinary condition (general), and 10% for scars of the head, face or neck 
 

The  applicant  alleged  that  his  hearing  loss  was  combat-related  because  it 
originated  from  his  "performance  of  duty  under  conditions  simulating  war,"  while 
"serving as a gun captain on a 3/50 gun mount for 40 months engaged on a quarterly 
period with night and day firing along with other CG vessels and the US Navy." 
 
 
instrumentality of war.  He stated that in 1960 he incurred the injury when he was 
 

He alleged that his rectal cancer was combat-related because it resulted from an 

[m]aking repair[s] to a boundary buoy that had been hit by a stray aircraft 
rocket.    The  buoy  exploded  due  to  trapped  hydrogen  gas  [and  he  was] 
hurdled over twenty feet over board.  [He] received burns over 40% of his 
body with bleeding of the rectum.  [The] bleeding started again in 1978.  
[A] Navy doctor found a carcinoma tumor [and I] had a resection and was 
left with a colostomy.  [The] pathological report of the tumor found wire 
segments inside.  [The] accident investigation found the vent system had 
been inoperative on the buoy.    

 

The  applicant  provided  the  pathology  report  of  the  rectal  lesion  specimen 
obtained  on  June  1,  1978.    It  offered  the  following  microscopic  description:    "Section 
through  the  entire  specimen  reveal  fragments  of  a  tumor  composed  of  glandular 
structure sometimes separated by marked desteoplastic reaction with acute and chronic 
inflammatory cell infiltration.  The cells are polyhedral, sometimes with hyperchromatic 
nuclei  and  vesicular  nucleoli.    Some  of the  fragments  are  partially  covered  by  benign 
colonic glands."   
 

The  applicant  also  submitted  the  pathology  report  of  the  specimen  obtained 
during  his  surgery  on  June  12,  1978.    This  report  noted  the  tumor  measured  6  cm 
longitudinally and 5 cm transversely and appeared to infiltrate the entire thickness of 
he  colonic  wall.    The  report  further  stated,  "The  specimen  consisted  of  a  segment  of 
grayish tissue measuring 5 x 1.5 x 1 cm.  Within the tissue are wire sutures.  Sections 
reveal pink tan cut surfaces." 
 
CRSC Processing 
 
 
The applicant filed  his application for CRSC in 2003.  The Coast Guard denied 
the application on December 19, 2003.  In denying the CRSC application, the applicant 
was advised to consider documenting the following: 
 

Your  hearing  loss  in  both  ears  is  not  documented  by  the  [DVA]  as  a 
disability.  In addition, it does not appear that your disabilities resulting 
from the exploded buoy were caused by an instrumentality of war - under 
the strict definition of CRSC criteria.  An instrumentality of war must have 
an  intended  military  purpose.    If  you  can  demonstrate  a  particular 
military  purpose  for  the  buoy  in  question,  we  will  reconsider  your 
application.    Such  demonstration  might  include  documented  proof  that 
the buoy was used to mark a military quarantine area - and that use was 
the buoy's sole use.   

 
 
On  February  7,  2004,  the  applicant  requested  reconsideration  of  the  decision 
denying his CRSC claim.  In a statement, he noted that the DVA had rated his hearing 
loss as 20% disabling, and found that it was directly linked to the exploding buoy and 
exposure to the noise from a 3/50 gun mounted on the ship.  With respect to the alleged 
injury to his rectum, he submitted a statement from his the deck supervisor, a retired 
BMC.  This individual's description of the explosion was the same as that provided by 
the  applicant.    The  BMC  further  stated  that  the  buoy  was  a  marker  for  the  Navy's 
bombing  range  and  was  struck  by  a  stray  rocket  severing  the  electrical  system.  
According  to  the  BMC,  the  applicant  was  replacing  a  battery  and  standing  inside  the 
rim of the buoy when a spark caused hydrogen gas to explode.  The chief stated that the 
accident investigation  found the  vent system was inoperative due  to the Navy rocket 
damage on May 10, 1960.   
 
On March 22, 2004, upon reconsideration, the Coast Guard denied the applicant's 
 
request for CRSC.  On April 7, 2004, the applicant objected to the Coast Guard denial of 
his CRSC application and encouraged further consideration.   
 
 
On April 29, 2004, the Coast Guard informed the applicant that the CRSC board3 
had  determined  that  he  met  the  overall  criteria  for  CRSC  for  his  hearing  related 
difficulties.    The  CRSC  panel  also  determined  that  "any  disability  you  may  have 
suffered  as  a  result  of  your  unfortunate  buoy  accident  is  combat-related."    The  CRSC 
panel  awarded  the  applicant  a  10%  combat  related  disability  for  his  hearing  loss  and 
10% for his tinnitus, for a combined 20% CRSC rating.  The applicant was advised that 
his CRSC claim for disability due to malignant growths of the digestive system could 
not be approved without further medical evidence.  The CRSC panel stated it required 
"further medical evidence that it is at least as probable as not that the metal fragments 
you've  documented  as  being  in  your  rectum  contributed  to  the  cancer  found  in  your 
rectum."  
 

                                                 
3   Hereafter, CRSC board will be referred to as the CRSC panel to avoid confusion with the use of the 
term Board which refers to the BCMR panel.   

 
On  June  22,  2004,  the  applicant  responded  to  the  CRSC's  letter.    He  asked  the 
CRSC panel to consider granting him a disability rating for the scarring on his face and 
for  skin  cancers  that  the  applicant  claimed  were  related  to  the  buoy  explosion.    The 
applicant also contributed his urinary condition to the removal of the malignant tumor 
growth of the digestive system, which he alleged along with his heart and hiatal hernia 
were  caused  by  "my  free  trip  into  orbit  and  slamming  back  on  the  buoy  body  before 
rolling over board."  The applicant stated that the doctor who performed the surgery to 
remove the digestive tumor had passed away, but he submitted a statement from a Dr. 
M about the wire fragments that were found in his body.   
 
 
Dr.  M  stated  that  in  addition  to  burns  on  his  face  and  torso,  the  applicant 
sustained rectal bleeding as a result of injuries sustained when the buoy exploded.   He 
stated that the cause of the applicant's rectal bleeding was not elicited and the applicant 
stated that it eventually stopped.  Dr. M. further stated: 
 

It  has  been  brought  to  my  attention  that  during  his  initial  resection  for 
cancer, some remnants of wire were found within the wall of his colon at a 
site in proximity to his cancer.  This is confirmed by his pathology report.  
It  is  my  opinion  that  the  wire  itself  is/was  not  responsible  for  him 
developing rectal carcinoma.  However, it is reasonable to infer that if his 
preceding injury from an explosion resulted in metal fragments in the wall 
of his colon as a result of the blast, then it is also possible if not probable 
that  other  foreign  debris  from  the  explosion  such  as  plastic  fragments, 
battery  acids,  grease,  dirt,  etc  would  have  been  introduced  in  a  similar 
fashion.  It is possible that some carcinogenic substance could have been 
introduced  into  the  rectum  as  a  result  of  his  traumatic  event.    The 
presence of the wire remnants validate that this area was indeed involved 
in his blast injury.   

 
 
On  July  6,  2004,  the  CRSC  responded  to  the  applicant's  June  letter.    The  panel 
granted the applicant an additional 10% disability rating for scars to the head, face or 
neck,  but  continued  to  deny  the  applicant's  request  for  a  disability  rating  due  to 
malignant growths of the digestive system.  The CRSC panel told the applicant that it 
required  "further  medical  opinion  that  it  is  more  probable  than  not"  that  the  buoy 
accident was the cause of the applicant's rectal cancer.  The panel recommended that the 
applicant consult a colorectal oncologist.   
 
 
On August 19, 2004, the applicant responded to the CRSC panel's July letter and 
submitted  an  email  report  from  the  Georgia  Cancer  Institute.      The  email  stated  the 
following: 
 

Unfortunately we do not have enough information to really answer your 
questions adequately and we try to avoid giving really specific answers to 

individuals.  To answer your question in GENERAL terms, yes, scars can 
generate cancer and they usually are adenocarcinoma; long-term exposure 
to chemicals and carcinogenic agents can also cause cancer, often different 
kinds  (example:  benzene  associated  with  transitional  cell  carcinoma, 
asbestos with mesothelioma).  Most university cancer centers have genetic 
or risk assessment tools (in NC, Duke or UNC-Chapel Hill) that may help 
you  find  a  specific  answer,  but  they  would  need  to  know  the  exact 
pathology  of  the  cancer,  the  exact  component  analysis  of  what  was 
removed, your own personal health history (smoking, etc).     

 

RELATED EXCEPTS FROM THE MILITARY RECORD  

 
 
The  applicant  enlisted  in  the  Coast  Guard  January  31,  1957.    In  1960,  he  was 
involved in the buoy accident.  The medical records show that he was hospitalized from 
May 10-17, 1960, for treatment of first and second degree burns to his forehead, eyelids, 
neck,  right  forearm,  left  forearm,  and  ankles.    There  is  nothing  in  medical  reports 
suggesting  that  the  applicant  received  any  other  injuries  as  a  result  of  the  buoy 
explosion.   
 
  
Later, on February 2, 1977, after earning 20 years of active service, the applicant 
was  placed  on  the  temporary  disability  retired  list  (TDRL)  with  a  combined  40% 
disability  rating  for  electrical  conductive  cardiac  defect,  hiatal  hernia,  and  a  slight 
disfiguring  scar.    The  applicant's  heart  disease  triggered  the  medical  board  and 
subsequent physical disability evaluation proceedings.  During a medical evaluation for 
heart  disease  in  1974,  a  medical  examination  of  the  applicant  revealed  the  following 
pertinent information with respect to the colon:  "The abdomen revealed bowel sounds 
within  normal  limits.    No  organs  were  felt.    There  was  also  no  tenderness.    Rectal 
examination was normal.  Stools were guaiac negative.  Genitalia were normal.  Back 
revealed no CVA tenderness.  Neurological examination was within normal limits."   
 
While  on  the  TDRL,  the  applicant  was  required  to  undergo  periodic  medical 
 
examinations.    During  a  periodic  medical  examination  in  June  1978,  the  applicant 
complained  of  intermittent  rectal  bleeding  occurring  over  an  approximately  three-
month period.  Neoplasm was found during the rectal examination and plus was in the 
applicant's  stool.    Upon  on  further  examination,  the  applicant  was  diagnosed  with 
adenocarcinoma  of  the  rectum.      On  June  12  1978  the  applicant  underwent  an 
abdominoperineal resection.   
 
 
addressed to whom it may concern.  The surgeon wrote the following: 
 

On  October  11,  1978,  the  surgeon  wrote  a  letter  on  the  applicant's  behalf 

There is no question in my mind that when a lesion reaches the size of [the 
applicant's] lesion that it has been present for some time.  According to the 

recent theories on doubling rates of tumors, a lesion this size should have 
been present from seven to ten years for it to reach a cm or greater in size.  
Therefore, I suspect that the lesion was present at least in situ at the time 
of  [the  applicant's]  retirement  from  the  service.    In  that  regard,  I  would 
think that this is a service related disability.   

 
 
From March 16, 1981, through March 25, 1981, the applicant was hospitalized for 
a medical examination to determine whether he should be permanently retired from the 
Coast Guard due to physical disability.  The medical report for this evaluation did not 
contain  any  mention  that  fragments  from  the  buoy  explosion  contributed  to  or  were 
suspected of contributing to the applicant's colon cancer.   
 
 
On April 7, 1981, the Formal Physical Evaluation Board found the applicant unfit 
to perform the duties of his rating and recommended his permanent retirement with a 
100% disability rating, as follows:  100% for resection of adenocarcinoma of the rectum, 
rated by analogy to colostomy; 30% for left bundle branch block, rated by analogy to 
arteriosclerotic heart disease; and (3) 10% for hiatal hernia, with two or more symptoms 
of less severity.   
 
 
May 18, 1981.   
    

The applicant was permanently retired by reason of physical disability effective 

VIEWS OF THE COAST GUARD 

 
 
On August 26, 2005, the Board received an advisory opinion from the Office of 
the Judge Advocate General (JAG).  He recommended that the applicant's request for 
relief be denied.  
 

The JAG argued that the applicant offered no evidence to support his claim that 
the CRSC panel erred or committed any injustice.  The JAG stated that it is abundantly 
clear from the record that the Coast Guard Personnel Command exhaustively worked 
with applicant concerning his CRSC disability compensation claim.  In this regard, he 
stated  that  the  applicant  was  informed  that  the  CRSC  panel  required  further  medical 
opinion in order to substantiate the applicant's claim of disability, even to the detail of 
what  type  of  specialist  he  should  consult.    The  JAG  noted  that  the  applicant  has 
repeatedly failed to produce any additional information to substantiate his request for a 
100% CRSC.  The JAG stated that absent strong evidence to the contrary, government 
officials are presumed to have carried out their duties correctly, lawfully, and in good 
faith.  Arens v. United States, 969 F.2d 1034, 1037 (1992).  Moreover, he stated that the 
applicant bears the burden of proving error under 33 C.F.R. § 52.24.  
 
 
The  JAG  attached  comments  from  the  Commander,  Coast  Guard  Personnel 
Command (CGPC) as Enclosure (1) to the advisory opinion.  In addition to comments 

similar  to  those  of  the  JAG,  CGPC  offered  the  following:    The  applicant  has  failed  to 
produce any additional information to substantiate his request for 100% [CRSC].  The 
information presented in [the email from gacancer.com] is too general to be considered 
a  "medical  opinion  that  it  is  more  probable  than  not"  that  the  buoy  accident  the 
Applicant suffered was the cause of the cancer found in [the applicant's] rectum." 
 

APPLICANT’S RESPONSE TO THE VIEWS OF THE COAST GUARD 

 
 
On September 26, 2005, the BCMR received the applicant's response to the views 
of the Coast Guard and he disagreed with the recommendation that relief should not be 
granted in his case. 
 
 
The  applicant  contended  that  if  he  failed  to  carry  the  burden  of  proof  it  is 
because several colorectal oncologists advised him that the cancerous tissue specimen 
would have to be available in order to determine if the fragments caused the cancer to 
form.    Apparently,  none  of  the  specimen  was  saved.  He  stated  that  he  attempted  to 
have  one  of  the  oncologists  read  his  pathological  report  but  was  advised  that  they 
would only see him if he had an active cancer problem.   
 
 
The applicant argued that the same debris that struck him in the face and neck 
was  of  the  same  type  that  entered  his  colon.    He  stated  that  his  underwear  and 
dungarees were blown away with a force that lifted his 160-pound frame twenty-five 
feet into the air.   
 
 
The  applicant  stated  that  the  record  shows  that  wire  fragments  were  in  the 
specimen removed from his colon in 1978.  Relying on an article from an Internet site, 
the applicant argued that "fire fragments caused colon polyps to develop when chromo-
some damage occurs in the cells of the inner lining of the colon, when chromosomes are 
damaged,  growth  becomes  uncontrolled  resulting  in  masses  of  extra  tissue  (polyps) 
these  polyps  are  initially  benign  but  over  the  years  benign  colon  polyps  can  acquire 
additional chromosome damage to become cancerous adenocarcinomas . . . " 
 
 
 

APPLICABLE LAW AND GUIDANCE 

10 U.S.C. 1413a.  

 

 

Section  1413a.  (Combat-related  special  compensation)  of  title  10  of  the  United  States 
Code provides for the following: 
 

"(a)  Authority.    The  Secretary  concerned  shall  pay  each  eligible  combat-related 
uniformed services retiree who elects benefits under this section a monthly amount for 
the combat-related disability of the retiree determined under subsection (b). 
 
"(b) Amount.  (1) Determination of month amount.  Subject to paragraphs (2) and (3), 
the monthly amount to be paid an eligible combat-related disabled uniformed services 
retiree under subsection (a) for any month is the amount of compensation to which the 
retiree  is  entitled  under  title  38  for  that  month,  determined  without  regard  to  any 
disability for the retiree that is not a combat-related disability  . . .   
  
"(c)  Eligible retirees.   For purposes of this section, an eligible  combat-related disabled 
uniform  services  retiree  referred  to  in  subsection  (a)  is  a  member  of  the  uniformed 
services entitled to retired pay who--(1) has completed at least 20 years of service in the 
uniformed services that are creditable for purposes of computing the amount of retied 
pay to which a member is entitled to is entitled to retired pay under section 12731 of 
this title . . . (other than by reason of section 12731b of this title . . .  (2) has a combat-
related disability.   
 
"(d) Procedures.  The Secretary of Defense shall prescribe procedures and criteria under 
which  a  disabled  uniformed  services  retiree  may  apply  to  the  Secretary  of  a  military 
department to be considered to be an eligible combat-related uniform services retiree.  
Such procedures shall apply uniformly through out the Department of Defense.4 

   
* 

* 

* 

"(f) Combat-related disability.  In this section, the term 'combat-related disability' means 
a  disability  that  is  compensable  under  the  laws  administered  by  the  Secretary  of 
Veterans Affairs and that --  (1) is attributable to an injury for which the member was 
awarded  the  Purple  Heart;  or  (2)  was  incurred  (as  determined  under  the  criteria 
prescribed  by  the  Secretary  of  Defense)--  (A)  as  a  direct  result  of  armed  conflict;  (B) 
while engaged in hazardous service; (C) in the performance of duty under conditions 
simulating war; or (D) through an instrumentality of war."   
 

                                                 
4      CGPC  informed  the  BCMR  staff  that  it  follows  the  CRSC  guidance  provided  by  the  Department  of 
Defense in processing its CRSC claims.   
 
 

Department of Defense (DOD) CRSC Program Guidance 
 

DOD Combat-related Special Compensation Revised Program Guidance January 
2004  states  that  the  following  criteria,  terms,  definitions,  explanations  will  apply  to 
making combat-related determinations in the CRSC program. 
 

Direct Result of Armed Conflict - The disability is a disease or injury incurred in 
the  line  of  duty  as  a  result  of  armed  conflict.    The  fact  that  a  member  incurred  the 
disability during a period of war or an area of armed conflict or while participating in 
combat  operations  is  not  sufficient  to  support  a  combat-related  determination.    There 
must  be  a  definite  causal  relationship  between  the  armed  conflict  and  the  resulting 
disability.  
 

Armed  conflict  includes  a  war,  expedition,  occupation  of  an  area  or  territory, 
battle skirmish, raid invasion, rebellion, insurrection, guerilla action, riot, or any other 
action  in  which  Service  members  are  engaged  with  a  hostile  or  belligerent  nation, 
faction, force, or terrorists.   
 

Armed conflict may also include such situations as incidents involving a member 
while interned as a prisoner of war or while detained against his or her will in custody 
of  a  hostile  or  belligerent  force  while  escaping  or  attempting  to  escape  from  such 
confinement, prisoner of war, or detained status.   
 

While Engaged in Hazardous Service - Such service includes, but is not limited to 
aerial  flight,  parachute  duty,  demolition  duty,  experimental  stress  duty,  and  diving 
duty.  A finding that a disability is the result of such hazardous service required that the 
injury or disease be the direct result of actions taken in the performance of such service.  
Travel  to  and  from  such  service,  or  actions  incidental  to  a  normal  duty  status  not 
considered hazardous are not included.   
 

In the Performance of Duty Under Conditions Simulating War - in general this 
covers disabilities resulting from military training, such as war games, practice alerts, 
tactical exercises, airborne operations, leadership reaction courses, grenade and live fire 
weapons practice, bayonet training, hand-to-hand combat training, repelling and nego-
tiation of combat confidence and obstacle courses.  It does not include physical training 
activities  such  as  calisthenics  and  jogging  or  formation  running  and  supervised  sport 
activities.   
 

Instrumentality  of  War  -  Incurrence  during  an  actual  period  of  war  is  not 
required. However, there must be a direct causal relationship between the instrument-
ality of war and the disability.  The disability must be incurred incident to a hazard or 
risk of the service.   
 

FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS 

 
 
The  Board  makes  the  following  findings  and  conclusions  on  the  basis  of  the 
applicant's  military  record  and  submissions,  the  Coast  Guard's  submissions,  and 
applicable law: 
 

1. 

The Board has jurisdiction concerning this matter pursuant to section 1552 

of title 10 of the United States Code.   
 

2. 

The  applicant  requested  an  oral  hearing  before  the  Board.    The  Chair, 
acting pursuant to 33 C.F.R. § 52.51, denied the request and recommended disposition 
of the case without a hearing.  The Board concurs in that recommendation. 
 
3.      The  CRSC  panel  has  determined  that  any  disability  that  the  applicant 
 
suffered  as  a  result  of  the  buoy  explosion  in  1960  is  combat-related.    In  accordance 
therewith, the CRSC panel has granted the applicant a combined 30% CRSC disability 
rating for bilateral hearing loss, bilateral tinnitus, and scarring of the face and/or neck.  
The  Board  accepts  the  favorable  findings  of  the  CRSC  panel.    Therefore,  the  primary 
issue before this Board is whether the applicant has proven that his colorectal cancer is 
combat-related for which he should receive CRSC. 
 

4.   The Board finds that the applicant has not proven by a preponderance of the 
evidence  that  his  colorectal  cancer  was  caused  by  the  1960  buoy  explosion.      The 
applicant  argued  that  according  to  the  pathology  report,  wire  fragments  were  found 
during the biopsy of the tumor that was removed during his surgery on June 12, 1978.  
Bothersome  to  the  Board  is  the  characterization  of  the  pathology  finding  as  wire 
fragments or segments when in fact the pathology reports states that "within the tissue 
are  wire  sutures."    A  suture  is  "  a  loop  of  thread,  catgut,  or  similar  material  used  to 
secure apposition of the edges of a surgical or accidental wound; also called a stitch."  
See Dorland's Illustrated Medical Dictionary, 29th edition, p. 1739.  By using the word 
suture, the pathologist indicates the placement or attempted placement of stitches in the 
colon, maybe from the earlier specimen removed from the applicant's colon prior to his 
surgery.  Therefore, the Board is not persuaded that "wire sutures" is synonymous with 
"wire  fragments"  as  the  applicant  uses  that  term  in  this  case.      Accordingly,  the 
applicant has submitted insufficient evidence to prove that wire fragments from the buoy 
explosion were found in his colon.   

 
5.  However, even if the Board were to accept that the terms wire fragments and 
wire  sutures  are  synonymous,  the  applicant  has  still  failed  to  prove  that  such  wire 
fragments resulted from the buoy explosion and caused or contributed to his cancer.  In 
support  of  his  contention  in  this  regard,  he  offered  a  statement  from  Dr.  M.    The 
problem with Dr. M's statement is that he doubted that the wire itself was responsible 
for the applicant developing rectal carcinoma, which undermines the applicant's central 

contention  in  this  case.    However,  Dr.  M  stated  that  if  metal  fragments  from  the 
explosion were in his colon "it is possible if not probable that other foreign debris from 
the explosion  . . . would have been introduced in a similar fashion."  He further stated, 
"It  is  possible  that  some  carcinogenic  substance  could  have  been  introduced  into  the 
rectum as a result of his traumatic event."  The problem with this speculation is there is 
no  evidence  in  the  record  of  any  other  debris  or  carcinogen  having  entered  the 
applicant's system/colon.   
 

6.      The  applicant  then  asks  the  Board  to  accept  an  email  from  gacancer.com 
explaining  the  various  causes  of  cancer.    It  offers  no  opinion  that  the  alleged  wire 
fragments  contributed  to  or  caused  the  applicant's  colorectal  cancer.    The  email 
explained, as the CRSC panel did, that the applicant would need to obtain an opinion 
from a colorectal cancer expert that the buoy explosion probably caused or contributed 
to the colon cancer.  Such a statement is particularly important since eighteen years had 
elapsed between the buoy explosion and the diagnosis of the applicant's cancer in 1978. 
 

7.   As the applicant explained, the explosion occurred over 40 years ago and he 
had  no  idea  at  that  time  that  he  would  need  to  be  concerned  about  preserving  the 
specimen  from  his  colon.    Therefore,  the  Board  would  be  inclined  to  believe  that  the 
applicant's  colorectal  cancer  could  possibly  have  been  due  to  the  explosion  if  the 
medical  reports  corroborated  his  allegation  that  he  had  rectal  bleeding  at  the  time  of 
hospitalization  for  the  burns  from  the  explosion.    The  medical  reports  do  not  contain 
any  suggestion  that  the  applicant  had  rectal  bleeding  during  his  approximately  five 
days of hospitalization.  The first report of rectal bleeding in the record by the applicant 
was during a periodic examination after his 1977 placement on the TDRL.  The Board 
would also be inclined to believe that foreign objects might have entered the applicant's 
body during the explosion, if as the applicant claimed his clothes and underwear were 
torn off during the explosion. The medical record makes no mention that the applicant 
clothes were torn off or that he suffered any abdominal wounds.  Moreover, the burns 
he suffered seem to have occurred only on those portions of the body that would not be 
covered by clothing during the spring of 1960, when the buoy explosion occurred. The 
retired BMC does not state that the applicant's clothing was blown off. In addition the 
applicant  underwent  at  least  five  physical  examinations  for  various  purposes 
(reenlistment, overseas duty) between October 1960 and July 1975, and none indicated 
that  the  applicant  suffered  from  rectal/anus  problems. 
  The  Board  finds  no 
corroboration for the applicant's claims that he suffered from rectal bleeding at the time 
of  treatment  for  burns  caused  by  the  explosion,  that  his  clothes,  including  his 
underwear, was torn off during the explosion, or that projectiles entered his abdomen 
during the explosion.  
 

9.  The applicant indicated in his submissions that he wanted a CRSC rating for 
his  bladder  condition  and  for  his  skin  cancer.    The  bladder  condition  could  well  be 
related to the colon cancer but since the applicant has failed to prove his claim in that 

regard, no basis exists for granting CRSC with respect to the bladder.  The applicant has 
no  DVA  rating  for  his  skin  cancer,  a  requirement  for  CRSC.    Therefore,  it  is  not 
necessary for the Board to make a finding with respect to the skin cancer.   

 
10.    The  applicant  also  claimed  that  he  is  being  treated  by  the  DVA  for  post-
traumatic stress and pancreatitis.  However, there is no evidence that the applicant has 
DVA ratings for these conditions, a requirement for CRSC; nor did he submit evidence 
that such conditions are combat-related.   
  

11.  The applicant has not proved by a preponderance of the evidence that the 
1960 buoy explosion caused or contributed to his colorectal cancer.   Accordingly, his 
application should be denied.   
 
 

[ORDER AND SIGNATURES ON FOLLOWING PAGE] 

 
 
 
 
 

The  application  of  former  BMCS  xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx,  USCG  (Ret.),  for 

ORDER 

 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

correction of his military record is denied. 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 

 
 

 

 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 
 Kevin M. Walker 

 

 

 
 Richard Walter 

 

 

 
 Kenneth Walton