RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
             AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF:      DOCKET NUMBER:  BC-2003-02861
            INDEX CODE:  108.07
            COUNSEL:  NONE

            HEARING DESIRED:  NO

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

His service-connected medical condition, lumbar  spine  intervertebral  disc
syndrome,  be  assessed  as  combat  related  in  order   to   qualify   for
compensation under the Combat Related Special Compensation (CRSC) Act.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

At the time of his injury he was a KC-135 pilot attending  instructor  pilot
training.  He was injured while performing an emergency  training  procedure
on-board an aircraft.  The operational maneuver  was  mandated  due  to  the
inherent dangers of flying.  This maneuver required him to escape  from  the
aircraft through an over-wing hatch, walk out  along  the  top-side  of  the
wing, and slide down the flaps.  He was practicing early in the morning  and
condensation had formed on the wing.  He slipped on the  condensation,  lost
his balance, and fell approximately seven feet to the  ground.   His  injury
qualifies him for CRSC under the established criteria as resulting  from  an
instrumentality of war and wile engaged in hazardous service.

In  support  of  his  request  applicant  provided  a  personal   statement,
documentation associated with  his  CRSC  determination,  and  documentation
associated  with  the  CRSC  program.    His   complete   submission,   with
attachments, is at Exhibit A.

_________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

Applicant was appointed a second lieutenant, Reserve of  the  Air  Force  on
118 Sep 78 and was progressively promoted to the grade  of  captain,  having
assumed that grade effective and with a date of  rank  of  12  Dec  90.   He
served as an aircraft pilot.  On 31 Dec 98, he was  retired  for  length  of
service.  He served 20 years, 3 months, and 13 days on active duty.

His CRSC application was disapproved on 21 Jul 03 and 13  Aug  03  based  on
the fact that his medical  conditions  were  determined  not  to  be  combat
related.

_________________________________________________________________
AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

AFPC/DPPD recommends denial.   DPPD  states  the  fact  a  member  may  have
incurred a medical condition during a period of war or  while  participating
in  combat  operation  is  not  sufficient  to  support   a   combat-related
determination.  A review of the limited records failed  to  show  a  combat-
related connection for his  invertebral  disc  syndrome.   The  accident  in
which he injured his back after a short fall  from  the  wing  of  a  KC-135
practicing egress has no direct causal connection to  combat  activity.   It
is an injury resulting from his accidental fall off the wing of an  aircraft
during the performance of his everyday duties as a crewmember.   His  injury
was not caused by the aircraft but by  his  own  misstep.   Although  aerial
flights are listed as hazardous service, travel to and  from  such  service,
or actions incidental to a normal duty status not considered hazardous,  are
not regarded as combat related.

The DPPD evaluation is at Exhibit C.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

Applicant reiterates his injury  falls  into  the  category  labeled  "While
Engaged in  Hazardous  Service."   Aerial  flight  is  listed  as  hazardous
service, this, his injury which occurred while performing  required  aircrew
duties while  onboard  an  aircraft,  qualifies  under  the  "engagement  in
hazardous  service"  for  CRSC  determination.   In  order   to   meet   the
requirement of the combat-relatedness determination, the  injury  must  have
occurred while performing a task  considered  hazardous.   When  considering
the  Webster  dictionary  definition  of  hazard,  he  was   injured   while
performing a task considered  hazardous.   An  excerpt  from  the  Emergency
Procedures T.O. clearly expresses the inherent  risk  or  danger  associated
with any action contained within the section of the T.O.

In support of his response, applicant provided a  personal  statement,  CRSC
program guidelines, and an excerpt  from  the  KC-135  Emergency  Procedures
T.O.  His complete response, with attachments, is at Exhibit E.

_________________________________________________________________

ADDITIONAL AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

The BCMR Medical  Consultant  recommends  denial.   The  Medical  Consultant
states practice aircraft ground egress is not considered aerial  flight  and
does not qualify as hazardous duty for purposes  of  CRSC  eligibility.   In
order to meet the instrumentality of war criteria, there must  be  a  direct
causal relationship between the instrumentality of war  and  the  disability
and such use or occurrence differs from the use or occurrence under  similar
circumstances in civilian pursuits.  Exiting an aircraft during  a  practice
ground egress does not qualify since the injury was caused  by  jumping  off
the static airplane,  not  through  the  operation  of  functioning  to  the
airplane.  Injuries sustained by either falling/jumping off or working on  a
military device where the injury was not caused by the  device  itself,  but
instead error, misjudgment or mishap, are not considered  injuries  eligible
for CRSC.

The Medical Consultant evaluation is at Exhibit F.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF ADDITIONAL AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

Applicant states his condition qualifies for CRSC as it meets the  condition
"while engaged  in  hazardous  service."   Aerial  flight  is  listed  as  a
hazardous duty and must be  performed  by  qualified  aircrew  members.   In
order to  be  qualified  for  aerial  flight,  an  aircrew  member  must  be
proficient at ground operations, egress, and other emergency  procedures  as
listed in  AFI  11-2KC-135V2,  Pilot's  Flight  Evaluation  Standards.   The
activities listed, which include egress, are required actions incidental  to
a  normal  duty  status.   Other  hazardous  duties  reflected  under   CRSC
guidelines do not restrict CRSC qualification to only the  actual  duty  but
implies that duties incidental to a normal duty status considered  hazardous
will qualify for CRSC.  Emergency  egress  is  listed  under  the  emergency
operations section of the T.O.  These situations are designated  emergencies
because there is a possibility of injury or death to aircrew  members.   Air
Force Occupational Safety and Health Standards (AFOSH) 91-100,  lists  falls
from an aircraft as  a  hazard.   To  compound  this  hazard,  AFOSH  91-100
states, "When aircraft are wet extra caution will be used."   In  his  case,
the condensation was not visible from eye-level while standing,  so  he  was
not alerted to use extra caution.

His complete response, with attachments, is at Exhibit H.

_________________________________________________________________

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  available
evidence of record, it is our opinion  that  the  service-connected  medical
conditions the applicant believes are combat-related were  not  incurred  as
the direct result of armed conflict, while engaged in hazardous service,  in
the performance of duty under  conditions  simulating  war,  or  through  an
instrumentality of war, and  therefore,  do  not  qualify  for  compensation
under the CRSC Act.  We agree with the opinions and recommendations  of  the
Air Force offices of primary responsibility and  adopt  their  rationale  as
the basis for our conclusion that the applicant has not been the  victim  of
an error or injustice.  In the absence of evidence to the contrary, we  find
no compelling  basis  to  recommend  granting  the  relief  sought  in  this
application.

_________________________________________________________________

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-2003-
02861 in Executive Session on 14 Dec 04, under the  provisions  of  AFI  36-
2603:

      Mr. Thomas S. Markiewicz, Chair
      Mr. Michael V. Barbino, Member
      Ms. Martha A. Maust, Member

The following documentary evidence was considered:

    Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 20 Aug 03, w/atchs.
    Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
    Exhibit C.  Letter, AFPC/DPPD, dated 30 Oct 03.
    Exhibit D.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 7 Nov 03.
    Exhibit E.  Letter, Applicant, dated 23 Jan 04, w/atchs.
    Exhibit F.  Letter, BCMR Medical Consultant, dated 3 Aug 04
    Exhibit G.  Letter, SAF/MRBC, dated 19 Oct 04.




                                   THOMAS S. MARKIEWICZ
                                   Chair