RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2011-00724 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: His service-connected medical conditions, bilateral hearing loss/tinnitus and bilateral pes planus with fibromatosis and onychomycosis, be assessed as combat related in order to qualify for compensation under the Combat Related Special Compensation (CRSC) Act. _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: His CRSC claim was denied because there was no evidence to confirm his disabilities were combat-related. He is eligible for CRSC due to the fact his disabilities were incurred as a direct result of: (1) An instrumentality of war (aircraft, combat vehicles, weapons, etc); and (2) Training that simulated war (exercises, field training, etc.) He has provided documentation to the CRSC Board and feels he is not being judged fairly. In support of his request, the applicant provides a personal statement, copies of medical documents, deployment orders, photos, and signed statements from Department of Veterans Affairs (DVA) doctors and various supervisors and co-workers. The applicant's complete submission, with attachments, is at Exhibit A. _________________________________________________________________ STATEMENT OF FACTS: On 29 Apr 88, the applicant contracted his initial enlistment in the Regular Air Force. He was progressively promoted to the grade of technical sergeant, having assumed that grade effective and with a date of rank of 1 Sep 03. He served as a Maintenance Management Production Craftsman, Recruiter, and a Military Training Instructor. He voluntarily retired from the Air Force on 30 Apr 08, having served 20 years and 2 days on active duty. The applicant submitted a claim for CRSC for impaired hearing, tinnitus and bilateral pes planus with fibromatosis onychomycosis, and his application was disapproved on 4 Nov 10. He requested reconsideration, and his request was denied on 15 Feb 11. His application was disapproved based on the fact no evidence was provided to confirm his disabilities were the direct result of armed conflict, hazardous service, instrumentality of war, or simulating war. To qualify as combat related the service-connected disability must be either: (1) attributed to an injury for which the Purple Heart was awarded; or (2) incurred as a direct result of armed conflict, while engaged in hazardous service, in the performance of duties under conditions simulating war, or through an instrumentality of war; as determined under criteria prescribed by the Secretary of Defense. The CRSC program was established to provide compensation to certain retirees with Combat-Related disabilities that qualify under the criteria set forth in Title 10, United States Code, (10 U.S.C.) Section 1413a. _________________________________________________________________ AIR FORCE EVALUATION: AFPC/DPSDC recommends denial. DPSDC states the applicant’s conditions do not meet the mandatory criteria for compensation under the CRSC program as outlined under the provisions of 10 U.S.C., Section 1413a. The VA awards service connected disabilities based on their standards. They resolve doubt in the interest of the veteran and grant service connection for injuries or diseases incurred while in service. While service connection for disabilities is required for initial eligibility for CRSC consideration, CRSC criteria is more stringent and requires documentation to support a qualifying combat-related event as the “direct” cause of a disability. When determining if a person qualifies for CRSC due to impaired hearing or tinnitus, the CRSC Board considers the occupation of the individual and the continual or direct (close proximity) exposure to combat-related noise hazards the individual was subjected to during his or her career. Many specialties may have occasional or indirect exposure to flight line noise due to the location of their duty sections (such as the perimeter of the flight line, entry control points, crossing the flight line, aircraft hangars or warehouses), or requirements to periodically spend time on the flight line itself. Based on input from functional area experts, the CRSC Board determined that the applicant’s career field is one of the specialties considered to have occasional or indirect exposure to qualifying combat-related noise; therefore, to award CRSC, there must be clear documentation of an acoustic trauma occurring due to a combat- related event (an example would be a medical document showing “member is complaining of ringing in ears/hearing loss after guarding an aircraft overnight while the engine was running.”) Documentation provided does not confirm the applicant incurred an acoustic trauma from a combat-related event. By law, determinations of whether a disability is combat-related will be based on the preponderance of available documentary information. All relevant documentary information is to be weighed in relation to known facts and circumstances, and determinations will be made on the basis of credible, objective documentary information in the records as distinguished from personal opinion, speculation, or conjecture. While the documentation provided reflects foot pain, there is no confirmation of a combat-related event as the direct cause of the applicant’s bilateral pes planus with fibromatosis and onychomycosis. The complete DPSDC evaluation, with attachments, is at Exhibit C. _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: Upon denial of his CRSC application, he resubmitted his claim as directed with detailed and well documented objective documentary evidence and information only to have it denied for a second time. He met the criteria to be eligible for CRSC; however, the Air Force CRSC Board fails to recognize his disabilities were a direct result of his military duty training exercises and were caused by instruments of war. This is not just his opinion, but, a fact as stated by several government medical doctors. The documentation/proof he submitted were overly scrutinized by the CRSC Board members and then disregarded during the decision by the Air Force CRSC approving official. He questioned the CRSC Board’s decision and was told he did not provide documentation regarding decibel loss in both ears. He did provide this information, in fact, several times. He emailed the information, and upon review of his hearing tests, he was told he met the requirements for the hearing loss; however, his “career field” does not qualify under the current Air Force CRSC guidance. He did not have occasional or indirect exposure to flight line noises. He was in direct exposure for more than eight years to flight-line noises and aircraft movement. It is a medical fact that prolonged exposure to loud sounds is the most common cause of tinnitus. He has a disability and provided the required documentation that meets the CRSC qualifications, and hopes that he will not be discriminated against because of his career field. The applicant's complete response is at Exhibit E. _________________________________________________________________ THE BOARD CONCLUDES THAT: 1. The applicant has exhausted all remedies provided by existing law or regulations. 2. The application was timely filed. 3. Insufficient relevant evidence has been presented to demonstrate the existence of an error or injustice. The available evidence of record and the documentation provided by the applicant does not support a finding that his service- connected medical conditions, bilateral hearing loss/tinnitus and bilateral pes planus with fibromatosis and onychomycosis meet the mandatory criteria to qualify for compensation under the CRSC program. While the applicant contends the documentation he provided clearly shows that he was in direct exposure to flight line noises and aircraft movement for more than eight years, after our review of the complete evidence of record, we accept the recommendation of the Air Force office of primary responsibility (OPR) to deny the requested relief and adopt its rationale as the primary basis for our determination the applicant has not been the victim of error or injustice. In this respect, the CRSC Board determined the applicant’s career field to be one of the specialties considered to have occasional or indirect exposure to qualifying combat-related noise. Based on applicable policy, there must be clear documentation of an acoustic trauma occurring due to a combat-related event. While the applicant strongly asserts he meets the requirement for CRSC, we do not find the evidence he provides is sufficient to conclude the CRSC board erroneously determined he is ineligible for CRSC. Although the applicant notes the medical evaluation by the Department of Veterans Affairs, the Air Force is not bound by their findings or recommendations. We do not dispute that the applicant may suffer from the medical conditions he raises, but his Air Force records do not support that his conditions occurred under circumstances that meet the criteria for award of CRSC benefits. Therefore, in the absence of evidence to the contrary, we find no basis to recommend granting the relief sought. _________________________________________________________________ THE BOARD DETERMINES THAT: The applicant be notified that the evidence presented did not demonstrate the existence of material error or injustice; that the application was denied without a personal appearance; and that the application will only be reconsidered upon the submission of newly discovered relevant evidence not considered with this application. _________________________________________________________________ The following members of the Board considered Docket Number BC-2011-00724 in Executive Session on 24 Oct 11, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603: , Panel Chair , Member , Member The following documentary evidence was considered: Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 2 Mar 11, w/atchs. Exhibit B. Applicant's Master Personnel Records. Exhibit C. Letter, AFPC/DPSDC, dated 31 Mar 11, w/atchs. Exhibit D. Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 15 Apr 11. Exhibit E. Letter, Applicant, dated 21 Apr 11, w/atchs. Panel Chair