RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF:DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2013-01930 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NOT INDICATED ________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: His service connected phobia condition (fear of flying) incurred due to an aircraft crash be reconsidered under the Combat Related Special Compensation (CRSC) program. ________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: He was on board an aircraft that crashed on 27 November 1970. The aircraft was operated by the Military Airlift Command and was scheduled to fly from McCord Air Force Base, Washington to Vietnam. In support of his appeal, the applicant provides his CRSC response and the Aircraft Accident Report. The applicant’s complete submission, with attachments, is at Exhibit A. ________________________________________________________________ STATEMENT OF FACTS: The applicant was medially retired on 20 January 1978 in the grade of technical sergeant with a 30 percent compensable physical disability rating. The remaining relevant facts pertaining to this application are contained in the letter prepared by the appropriate office of the Air Force which is at Exhibit B. ________________________________________________________________ AIR FORCE EVALUATION: AFPC/DPFDC recommends denial. The applicant submitted a claim for CRSC on 7 November 2005; however, at that time he did not meet the minimum eligibility requirement for service time as he was medically retired with only 16 years of service. With the enactment of the 2008 National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA), medically retired members became eligible for CRSC and the applicant’s phobia condition was reviewed. His claim was disapproved on 2 September 2008. The applicant provided additional information on 9 April 2012. At that time, he was disapproved for his phobia condition, but approved for the Agent Orange conditions of diabetes mellitus and inflammation of popliteal nerves at a combined rating of 40 percent. He requested reconsideration of his phobia condition but the request was denied on 18 December 2012 and 20 March 2013. There was no evidence provided to confirm this disability was the direct result of armed conflict, hazardous service, instrumentality of war, or simulating war. The CRSC program was established to provide compensation to certain retirees with combat-related disabilities under Title 10 U.S.C, Section 1413a. If the veteran does not satisfy the preliminary CRSC criteria, no further consideration is required and the claim is denied. If the veteran satisfies the preliminary CRSC criteria, the claim is reviewed for combat- related determination. The DVA 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 the disability. The military departments will determine whether a disability is combat-related under armed conflict, hazardous service, simulating war or instrumentality of war, using the definitions and criteria set forth. The applicant stated while in transit from Alaska to Vietnam, the aircraft he was on crashed, killing 47 people. Supporting documentation reflects the aircraft involved was operated by Capitol International Airways. The investigation disclosed the aircraft failed to become airborne during the takeoff run and overran the end of the runway. The Medical Board Report indicates the crash may have exacerbated earlier conflicts which may have been related to his father’s death in a jeep accident. The CRSC Board concedes the connection from the aircraft crash to the applicant’s phobia condition. However, there is no indication of a combat-related cause allowing approval of this condition. The documentation reflects the aircraft involved was a civilian aircraft, not a military aircraft. While the aircraft was under contract to transport military personnel to an overseas location that does not change the fact that it was not a military aircraft. Civilian aircraft are not considered an Instrumentality of war and transportation on a civilian aircraft is not unique to the military or combat. The Army and Navy/Marine CRSC counterparts are in agreement that a civilian aircraft crash, under these circumstances, would not meet CRSC criteria. The applicant’s condition does not meet the mandatory criteria for compensation under the CRSC program as outlined under the provisions of Title 10 U.S.C, Section 1413a. The complete DPFDC evaluation is at Exhibit C. ________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: A copy of the Air Force evaluation was forwarded to the applicant on 5 August 2013, for review and comment within 30 days (Exhibit D). As of this date, this office has received no response. ________________________________________________________________ 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 error or injustice. After a thorough review of the applicant’s submission and the evidence of record, we do not find the applicant’s service-connected medical condition was the direct result of an armed conflict, while engaged in hazardous service, in the performance of duty under conditions simulating war, or through an instrumentality of war. As such, we agree with the Air Force office of primary responisibility and adopt their rationale as the basis for our conclusion that the applicant’s condition does not meet the mandatory criteria for compensation under the CRSC program. Therefore, in the absence of evidence to the contrary, we find no basis to recommend granting the relief sought in this application. 4. The applicant's case is adequately documented and it has not been shown that a personal appearance with or without counsel will materially add to our understanding of the issues involved. Therefore, the request for a hearing is not favorably considered. ________________________________________________________________ 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 AFBCMR Docket Number BC-2013-01930 in Executive Session on 16 January 2014, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603: The following documentary evidence was considered: Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 26 Mar 13, w/atchs. Exhibit B. Applicant’s Master Personnel Records. Exhibit C. Letter, AFPC/DPFDC, dated 11 Jul 13. Exhibit D. Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 5 Aug 13.