CRSC Question

Slorcoe

Slorcoe

PEB Forum Regular Member
PEB Forum Veteran
Registered Member
Ok about to submit my CRSC application and have a question.
Would it be Combat-related under the instrumentality of war or simulating war?

What are you thoughts?

Here's the background I was on a special mission/training in an hidden place here in the US with STRATCOM. We do all the simulation of duty and war with the security loaded with live ammo... i took care of real injuries as medical and we trained in all the good stuff: bomb drill , fire drill, CBR drills, generator training, mass cass/medical drills, on loads and offloads all the good stuff that good navy people train. Well I went into our CON-EX vehicle and put my CBR gear away in the CON-EX box. When i left proceeded to step out to decend the ladder. The ladder collapsed and I now I am a below the knee amp.

I was found PDRL and 100% VA in May 2012.

So back to the original question: instrumentality of war or simulating war?

Thx for your vote or input as it is appreciated
 
Sorry to hear that this happened to you, I hope you are doing well. I think that it would be a pretty hard sell as combat related instrumentality of war or simulating war, but it doesn't hurt to try and push it as hard as possible. I'll be in a similar situation when I'm complete, with my issue being irreversable lung and thyroid damage directly linked to the burn pits in Iraq. Good luck!
 
ok well then of the 4 choices do you see it falling into any of them:

its not Direct armed conflict or engaged in hazardous service so that only leave the other two... I'm just trying to select the better of the 2 SW or IN?
 
I think the SW would probably be the best bet...(btw, sure is a small world...I do a lot of work with STRAT). I'm sure some of the legal pro's (Jason, Maparker, Ed Mercanti, etc.) will chime in soon and give you better direction.
 
Slorcoe,

Language of the LOD would probably assist you to hit the ten ring on your CRSC classification. For instance the CONEX itself could be determined an Instrumentality of War. Pay attention to the section that states "vehicles".
INSTRUMENTALITY OF WAR (IN) - The disability was incurred in the line of duty as a result of an instrumentality of war. An instrumentality
of war is a vehicle, vessel, or device designed primarily for Military Service and intended for use in such Service at the time of the occurrence
or injury. Incurrence during an actual period of war is not required; however, there must be a direct, documented, causal relationship between
the instrumentality of war and the resulting disability. The disability must be incurred incident to a hazard or risk of service and be caused by
the device itself. Instrumentalities not designed primarily for Military Service if use of, or occurrence involving, such instrumentality subjects
the individual to a hazard peculiar to Military Service, are included. Such use or occurrence differs from the use or occurrence under similar
circumstances in civilian pursuits. An example of this would be injuries sustained while engaging in pugil stick training using a broomstick,
where the broomstick replaces the weapon and causes the injury. A determination that a disability is the result of an instrumentality of war
may be made if the disability was incurred in any period of service as a result of such diverse causes as wounds caused by a military weapon,
accidents involving a military combat vehicle, injury or sickness caused by fumes, gases, or explosion of military ordnance, vehicles, or
material. For example, if a member is on a field exercise and is engaged in sporting activity and falls and strikes an armored vehicle, the injury
will not be considered to result from the instrumentality of war (armored vehicle) because it was the sporting activity that was the cause of the
injury, not the vehicle. On the other hand, if the individual was engaged in the same sporting activity and the armored vehicle struck the
member, the injury would be considered the result of an instrumentality of war.
 
In your situation I say Instrumentality of War fits best. One could easily replace the object "broomstick for pugil stick" comparison with the object CONEX. If that makes any sense.
 
Here is what my LOD says (which is nothing about the injury just it wasn't my fault.)

1. Pursuant to ref A (JAGMAN chap II) final action is taken in the subject investigation.

2. I concur with and hereby approve the findings, opinoions and recommendations contained in SUBJ investigation. Specifically, I have determined that (My) injuries occured in the Line of Duty and not due to his own misconduct. In accordance with section 0230 of ref (a) JAGMAN, ensure this gets in his service and health records as entries.

3 Further endorsement is considered unnecessary; therefore, the investigation is final and will be retained at this command for 2 years (already passed).

Signed by my CO
 
I am submitting my DD 214 with PDRL, VA ratings showing the %40 finding for BKA, my orders to the "special mission" and the LOD as above
 
I think the most likely route to success is arguing that it was training simulating war. But, the devil is in the details.

There is nothing about a ladder that makes it an instrumentality of war. It is a means of climbing up or down to reach something.

Here is my best explanation of how you make this "fit" the simulating war category. I had a case once where a pilot fell off the ladder to get into the canopy of his jet. Whether or not this ultimately would be correct or the "right" answer, the PEB rejected combat related finding because the ladder had nothing to do with the military nature/instrumentality of war nature of the aircraft. But, the stronger argument in my view, (and what I successfully argued) was that the fall happened during a training mission that simulated combat. The member was on a tight time frame, had to land the aircraft, get off, get the new mission brief/targeting package, and get back up in the air to meet the training mission. Based on evidence showing this, I was able to get the PEB to agree that this was a combat related injury. Though CRSC is not the same as a PEB finding, the issues are the same.

If you were just stowing gear because you were done with the exercise, I think you get an adverse outcome. If you were stowing it and your follow on task was to do something related to your training for a real world mission, then I think you are in a stronger position.

Don't get caught up in the larger exercise. Here is an analogous hypothetical. Soldier is selected for Ranger school. After a road march and land nav exercise, Soldier is given 4 hours of rest time to include personal hygiene. He goes to shower, slips and falls and injures his back. Probably not combat related as there was nothing about the shower scenario that makes his slip part of combat related training. Now, turn it around, and add in that he is given 4 hours non-mission time, is instructed to shower and then gather his gear and get ammo for a follow on mission and in doing so, slips and falls in the shower, then I think that it is combat related as training simulating war. The difference is not in the shower and the slip itself, it is in the mission and the time constraints that caused him to have to rush and then he fell (and perhaps it is still considered as "part of the mission"). The line is not always clear, but I think that focusing on the mission related aspects is the way to maximize chances for success.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top