Congrats man. I knew yours was about to come soon. Not sure about the cutoff dates. You can always ask DFAS about your status. Their number is on the letter or when you go to mypay and click the CRSC tab. Also you can do “Ask DFAS” function online as well. For me, DFAS only received my letter about 2-3 days after it was published on iPERMS.
Backpay can take 1-3 months. DFAS has a special group that works on those.
I thought as much. Some get it before their pay but since it’s been 3 plus years I’m sure mine will take time
Please share your timeline
30MAY25- emailed CRSC packet in
30May25- HRC confirmation of packet and sent to proper office for processing
-No 60 day letter or email
08SEP25- CRSC approval letter in iperms.
22Sep25- First payment showed up for monthly comp
No retro pay active yet- pending
Anyone have some feedback on this Navy Board CRSC decision. I am seeing others just like it. I am trying to compare contrast CRSC stories.
Docket No. 3412-21
"A review of your record shows that you entered service with the Marine Corps Reserve in 2002.
You deployed to Iraq in 2004 during which you asse1i being exposed to trauma associated with
witnessing death, small aims fire, and rocket attacks. You provided evidence that you were on
perimeter guai·d duty on 18 March 2004 during an attack on your compound. Upon your return
from Iraq, you were diagnosed with Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder. However, you were later
placed on the disability retirement list in 2018 after being found unfit for continued naval service
due to Cervical Spondylosis. Upon your retirement, you applied for Combat Related Special
Compensation (CRSC) based on your PTSD rating. Your application was denied by the CRSC
Boai·d on 4 Mai·ch 2019 based on lack of evidence."
"In your case, the Board determined the preponderance of the evidence does not support a finding
that you qualify for payment of CRSC under armed conflict or instrumentality of war. First, the
Board determined there was insufficient evidence that you were engaged with the enemy to
qualify for CRSC based on armed conflict. The aforementioned CRSC guidance requires a
service member to be “engaged with a hostile or belligerent nation, faction, force, or terrorists”
to qualify for CRSC as a result of armed conflict. While the Board noted that you were present
during an attack on your compound and present in an area of combat, they were unable to find
evidence that you were actually engaged with the enemy as required by the guidance. The Board
took into consideration that you do not possess a Combat Action Ribbon or any other combat
related awards that would support a finding of engaging with the enemy. In addition, the Board
considered the fact that the CRSC guidance also states “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.” In the Board’s opinion,
the preponderance of the evidence only supports a finding that you incurred PTSD as a result of
your presence in a combat area while participating in combat operations. In making this finding,
the Board applied the CRSC guidance that requires the consideration of “credible, objective
documentary information” in determining whether you qualify for CRSC. Therefore, absent
evidence that you were actually engaged with the enemy, the Board determined the
preponderance of the evidence does not support payment of CRSC based on armed conflict.
Second, the Board determined that you do not qualify for CRSC under instrumentality of war.
While different types of munitions utilized in a combat area certainly qualify as instrumentalities
of war, the Board determined that your PTSD was not caused by the munitions. Rather, the
Board concluded that your fear of being struck by these munitions is what led to your PTSD. In
making this finding, the Board considered the fact that almost everyone who serves in a combat
area is subject to direct or indirect fire during some time during their deployments. By using
your rationale, everyone exposed to these different type of munitions would qualify for CRSC
provided they develop PTSD. Similarly, a member could qualify for CRSC if they develop
PTSD based on the fear of injury caused by a passing military vehicle or an unexploded
Improvised Explosive Device. In the Board's opinion, this is inconsistent with the CRSC
guidance that envisions some fo1m of physical contact between the instrnmentality of war and
the injmy, e.g. the example provided in the CRSC guidance describes being shuck by a Humvee.
In addition, the Board felt it was inconsistent with the policy guidance that limits payment of
CRSC for injmies incmTed by simply being present in a combat zone or during combat
operations. Accordingly, the Board found insufficient evidence of error or injustice to warrant a
change to your record."
Docket No. 3412-21
"A review of your record shows that you entered service with the Marine Corps Reserve in 2002.
You deployed to Iraq in 2004 during which you asse1i being exposed to trauma associated with
witnessing death, small aims fire, and rocket attacks. You provided evidence that you were on
perimeter guai·d duty on 18 March 2004 during an attack on your compound. Upon your return
from Iraq, you were diagnosed with Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder. However, you were later
placed on the disability retirement list in 2018 after being found unfit for continued naval service
due to Cervical Spondylosis. Upon your retirement, you applied for Combat Related Special
Compensation (CRSC) based on your PTSD rating. Your application was denied by the CRSC
Boai·d on 4 Mai·ch 2019 based on lack of evidence."
"In your case, the Board determined the preponderance of the evidence does not support a finding
that you qualify for payment of CRSC under armed conflict or instrumentality of war. First, the
Board determined there was insufficient evidence that you were engaged with the enemy to
qualify for CRSC based on armed conflict. The aforementioned CRSC guidance requires a
service member to be “engaged with a hostile or belligerent nation, faction, force, or terrorists”
to qualify for CRSC as a result of armed conflict. While the Board noted that you were present
during an attack on your compound and present in an area of combat, they were unable to find
evidence that you were actually engaged with the enemy as required by the guidance. The Board
took into consideration that you do not possess a Combat Action Ribbon or any other combat
related awards that would support a finding of engaging with the enemy. In addition, the Board
considered the fact that the CRSC guidance also states “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.” In the Board’s opinion,
the preponderance of the evidence only supports a finding that you incurred PTSD as a result of
your presence in a combat area while participating in combat operations. In making this finding,
the Board applied the CRSC guidance that requires the consideration of “credible, objective
documentary information” in determining whether you qualify for CRSC. Therefore, absent
evidence that you were actually engaged with the enemy, the Board determined the
preponderance of the evidence does not support payment of CRSC based on armed conflict.
Second, the Board determined that you do not qualify for CRSC under instrumentality of war.
While different types of munitions utilized in a combat area certainly qualify as instrumentalities
of war, the Board determined that your PTSD was not caused by the munitions. Rather, the
Board concluded that your fear of being struck by these munitions is what led to your PTSD. In
making this finding, the Board considered the fact that almost everyone who serves in a combat
area is subject to direct or indirect fire during some time during their deployments. By using
your rationale, everyone exposed to these different type of munitions would qualify for CRSC
provided they develop PTSD. Similarly, a member could qualify for CRSC if they develop
PTSD based on the fear of injury caused by a passing military vehicle or an unexploded
Improvised Explosive Device. In the Board's opinion, this is inconsistent with the CRSC
guidance that envisions some fo1m of physical contact between the instrnmentality of war and
the injmy, e.g. the example provided in the CRSC guidance describes being shuck by a Humvee.
In addition, the Board felt it was inconsistent with the policy guidance that limits payment of
CRSC for injmies incmTed by simply being present in a combat zone or during combat
operations. Accordingly, the Board found insufficient evidence of error or injustice to warrant a
change to your record."
So from what I can tell is that the denied you because you did not have a combat related award for marines it’s the C.A.R, most cases for claims under CRSC with PTSD are denied if you don’t have a combat award. This is why it is important to submit all evidence( just cause the VA gave you PTSD for their end, CRSC doesn’t make their decision based off what the VA says) I have seen it plenty of times around Reddit too.
I would go back into your medical files and see if you sustained any injury from a instrument of war or simulation( this being tactical road march, training in a environment for deployment and such) it seems all branches use the same form.
I would go back into your medical files and see if you sustained any injury from a instrument of war or simulation( this being tactical road march, training in a environment for deployment and such) it seems all branches use the same form.
It might be better if you make a separate thread with a question of this depth. You'd get more visibility, as most commenters are coming here specifically for information or to comment on a Servicemember getting their CRSC decision letter. Just a thought.
You need to make a new post, this is someone else’s post and a different topic. What’s weighing against you, no combat award. PTSD is very hard to get without PH and other combat awards.
No kidding. I was shocked how many conditions they found to be combat-related simply because I have a Combat Action Badge.
I wrapped up two tours before CAB was a thing, didn’t feel like pressing it previous commands for retroactive awards, so yeah those of us that served 2001-2005 somewhat got hosed.