Well I posted in another thread and did not get a response so I am going to try this. I found my approval letter for CRSC approving me for 70%. No one at DFAS can tell me what that means financially though for me monthly. I retired with 10 years time of service and rank at retirement was E-5. Is there a chart I can go look at to help me with the math.
CRSC
- Thread starter Jlync18
- Start date
Try this one all you should need is your: High 36 months base pay, your time in service, number and type of dependents, and your %’s. The calculator claims to figure your CRSC award amount specific to your situation...
http://www.dfas.mil/militarymembers/woundedwarrior/disabledretireest.html
http://www.dfas.mil/militarymembers/woundedwarrior/disabledretireest.html
Well, DFAS is who ultimately calculates and pays-out CRSC...so, they better be able to figure out what it means to you financially! lol jeez. Someone at DFAS would be able to calculate it for you--just have to talk to the right person. Ask to be transferred to a supervisor until someone can answer the question.
i got my PEB back. 70% DOD and 80% Va. my question is this. my unfitting conditions happen because of my depolyment to iraq. it says the following.
" the disability is Permanent"
" the disability did not result from a combat realted injury as defined by title 26 u.s. code section 104(b)(3).
then on the next page it say
the PEB considered whether your unfitting disabilty was incurred in a combat zone(czone), during cobat-related operations CR(AC), or was combat-realated (CR-IW,SW,or HZ). inclusion of one of these CR/CZONE annotations to the right of qualifying diagnosis on the first page of the PEB findings indicates an affirmative finding.
now does this mean i cant cant apply for CRSC. my injuries was from my depolyments. i have attached the pages to this posting. ANY HELP will be great.
" the disability is Permanent"
" the disability did not result from a combat realted injury as defined by title 26 u.s. code section 104(b)(3).
then on the next page it say
the PEB considered whether your unfitting disabilty was incurred in a combat zone(czone), during cobat-related operations CR(AC), or was combat-realated (CR-IW,SW,or HZ). inclusion of one of these CR/CZONE annotations to the right of qualifying diagnosis on the first page of the PEB findings indicates an affirmative finding.
now does this mean i cant cant apply for CRSC. my injuries was from my depolyments. i have attached the pages to this posting. ANY HELP will be great.
Nothing prevents you from filing a CRSC claim. What the PEB says is a small piece. It is up to you to make an obvious connection to a combat related injury. You do this by providing clear evidence with your DD 2860. The forms lists forms of evidence to include. If you are able to walk the dog and make them understand, then chances are good even without an A/C determination.
While, in general what you say is correct Ranger2992; I can address this one more directly due to my recent experience with the CRSC teams.
I was recently denied CRSC on the Army side due to injuries that were cause by instrumentality. These injuries are clearly connected in my service record, and recorded by the VA. However, the folks working the cases will pick and choose the evidence to use for adjudicating your case. And, from what I was told after receiving the rejection letter from the folks at HRC. A line of duty report, MP report, or other document confirming the instrumentality occurred from your unit.
So, it should be as simple as walking the dog for them, but for some reason the military service medical records, coupled with the MEB/PEB, and VA findings, was not enough for my case. So, at this time I am now in the appeals phase.
Like with me I had neck and back surgery in 2009 but I got medvac for those injuries in 2008 from Iraq. Pretty much while I was on my second deployment I hurt myself due too all the weight that was put on my body. That's why I was asking about crsc
The way I see it, your injuries were incurred while carrying the necessary gear to perform combat duties. So, in my opinion you should file for CRSC. And follow it through all the way to the end.
correct thats what im doing filling out this paper work.. its kinda confussing to be honest haha.
You said earlier in this thread that you had found your CRSC approval letter...
NO THAT was not my posting. i'm filling out the paper work for CRSC
When I say "walk the dog" I am saying you have to make it crystal clear. It is like the difference between a criminal case and civil case in the courts. The CRSC board makes you prove everything. Also one of the common mistakes SMs make is sending too much. If you send your whole medical record, it will hurt you, not help you.
They want to see the notes that clearly state the orgin of injury. MEDEVAC orders for your injury will be good and then the follow on care. Did you have surgery right away, or did you do physical therapy? Also being over in Iraq and wearing all your combat gear will not be enough. You have to show the gear was the cause of your injury during combat operations against the enemy.
Let's say soldier A is a supply sergeant and never leaves the FOB. He has to wear his gear from his room to work, and then again going home. He also has to where it when he goes to the shopette, or anywhere else he is outside on the FOB. About halfway through the year his back starts bothering him and he starts going to the TMC. He gets a profile, but his back injury never gets better. He gets boarded and goes out for the back injury. He trys to file CRSC on the above scenario. He will have a hard time getting it approved by the way the criteria is written. His primary claim would be based "armed conflict" and they will deny it based on the fact he never engaged with the enemy.
Soldier B is also a supply sergeant, never leaves the FOB and has all the same requirements. While he is walking to the chow hall the incoming alarm sounds, and he runs for the nearest bunker. The mortor impacts on the FOB, but not close to him. While he is waiting for the all clear, he notices his back hurts and goes to the TMC. He gets treated and goes back to work. For the rest of the deployment his back bothers him and upon returning home, gets med boarded. He will have a much better chance of getting CRSC based on Armed conflict. He would submit the sitrep report, or a witness statement that there was a mortor attack on "x" day. Then he gets the notes from the TMC that shows his injury. Those notes will say how he hurt his back. Lastly, writing a clear and concise narrative on the DD 2860 wrapping it all together. This SM will have a very good chance based on that evidence.
Walking the dog is the most important part. You want to make it as clear as possible and in a format that makes it easy and logical to adjudicate it as a yes.
Just to give you a look at what the folks who process the CRSC packets can and will do if they are given the chance because they can find a loop hole. In the attached file, I have redacted areas that are sensitive. Now keep in mind that I was originally medically separated from service for these same injuries, and then later retired by the PDBR. Note, that the folks at CRSC ignored the PDBRs finds, by excluding them.
I was medvac for these injuries in dec 2008, i had my first surgery which was my neck in (jan 2009) then back surgery (aug 2009). on some of my med doc's from naval hospital and va "state due to carrying gear " cause my injures.
Jason Perry
Founder and Leader
Site Founder
Staff Member
PEB Forum Veteran
Lifetime Supporter
Registered Member
What is combat related about these injuries? I looked the file over and did not see anything obvious. Not to say that you definitely don't have a valid claim. I just don't see the basis for it based on the document. Please explain your position so I can try to sort it out and tell you what I think. I also don't see that you were retired based on the documents submitted (looks like you got severance at 10%). (But, you stated you were retired on the application....I see increase for VA ratings., just nothing showing you were retired).
I am happy to help, but I need you to help me to help you!! Were you retired? If so, where are those documents? Even so, I see nothing that shows combat related nature of your disabilities in your packet. Based on what I see, it seems they properly denied your claim. I can't tell if this is because that is the correct outcome or it is because your packet does not state your case. Either way, based on what you posted, the denial appears to be correct. I am trying to figure out if you have a valid claim and what you need to show to get the right outcome.
Jason,
Aside from all the military service treatment records that span over a year for these two injuries, coupled with the necessary VA documentation, which I did submitted to the folks at Fort Knox, along with MEB/PEB and the PDBR findings to start the process.
To break it down for you Jason, the accident resulted in a bad case of whiplash. And, it is all due to a safety requirement, of wearing the kevlar during the operations of theses types of vehicles. So, I was followed procedure and took one in the so called rear..
To start the appeals process, I got a copy of the telephonic MP report that was submitted by the TC to the Provost Marshall. I sent it in around June 1st, and received an email to my AKO on June 11 that they were working the case again.
Oh, and please note, as I said earlier, the folks at CRSC are picking and choosing what evidence they want to use in their interest.
Last edited:
Jason Perry
Founder and Leader
Site Founder
Staff Member
PEB Forum Veteran
Lifetime Supporter
Registered Member
Two big problems I see-
1) Nothing in the CRSC Denial file references that you had a combat related injury- no evidence, no argument, nothing.
2) The fact that you were wearing a Kevlar is unlikely, by itself to equate to a combat related injury. The motor vehicle accident was the direct cause (from what I see in the other files). However, there is not enough evidence that the wearing of the Kevlar exacerbated the impact of the motor vehicle crash.
I am not saying that it is not possible or correct that the Kevlar (which, you would have to argue is an "instrumentality of war", I would think, to prevail) is not a factor in your injury. Just that there is nothing you have submitted to support this finding. (And, as referenced in my parethetical, above, you would need to argue that the Kevlar is an instrumentality of war.) My point is that based on what you submitted, you have not made the necessary arguments or submitted the evidence that would result in a likely favorable ruling.
I only write this to help you. I am not trying to discourage you (nor do I take any position on your claims; further, as stated in the terms of service of this site, nothing here should be construed as legal advice). I am only pointing out what I see as problems with your application.
I hope all goes well for you. Best of luck!
What do you think they are picking and choosing? Did you highlight to them the vehicle information on page 4, block 1E? That is your meat and potatoes for showing the vehicle you were in was an instrument of war. All your other paperwork fails to point this out. Unless you makes things very clear for them, they are going to come back against you with a denial.
When you state the injury you need to lead with on "X" date I was involved in a motor vehicle accident while driving a LMTV (see MP report page 4, block 1E) from K-16 to ??? to pick up mission critical equipment. I was struck from the rear from another vehicle causing my head, neck and upper body to move forward and back in a "whipping" motion. A MP report was filed (see attachment 1) and I was seen at the TMC for headaches and neck pain the next day (see attachment 2). My neck pain and headaches progressively got worse over the next two years and I was Med boarded because I could no longer perform my military duties.
If you write stuff like that, you "walk the dog" and put their eyes exactly where you want them. Remember they are looking at a lot of cases just like the PEB. If you sent a box full of medical records, with no references to the reason it is CRSC elligable, they more than likely won't see it.
Joe
Oops. Sorry, Jason, I didn't mean to make you think that the kevlar was the direct cause. This is one of those physics things, and I look it from a different perspective than many other people. The kevlar was merely a factor in the equation.