RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
             AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF:      DOCKET NUMBER:  BC-2003-03094
            INDEX CODE:  108.07
            COUNSEL:  NONE

            HEARING DESIRED:  NO

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

His  service-connected  medical  condition,  lumbar  spine  syndrome,  post-
operative discectomy and laminectomy L4 through S1, be  assessed  as  combat
related in order to  qualify  for  compensation  under  the  Combat  Related
Special Compensation (CRSC) Act.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

On 10 Oct 96, during a 10-hour  flight-training  mission,  which  logged  42
assault landings, he began experiencing intense pain in his  back  and  down
his left leg after one  of  the  assault  landings.   Assault  landings  are
considered simulated combat training and clearly fall under the category  of
injuries incurred in the performance of  duty  under  conditions  simulating
war.   Up until that date, he never had any back problems.

In  support  of  his  request,  applicant  provided  a  personal  statement,
documentation associated with his initial  CRSC  application,  documentation
extracted from his medical records, and separation documents.  His  complete
submission, with attachments, is at Exhibit A.

_________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

Applicant contracted his initial enlistment in the Regular Air Force  on  14
Sep 78.  He was progressively promoted to the grade of  technical  sergeant,
having assumed that grade effective and with a date of rank  of  1  Dec  90.
He served as a Jet Engine  mechanic,  a  Structural  Specialist,  and  as  a
Flight Engineer. On 30 Sep 98, he voluntarily retired for years of  service.
 He served 20 years and 17 days on active duty

His CRSC application was disapproved on 31 Jul 03 based upon the  fact  that
his service-connected medical condition was determined  not  to  be  combat-
related or the direct result of duty performed under  conditions  simulating
war.

_________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

AFPC/DPPD recommends denial.  DPPD states he was treated for a muscle  spasm
in October 1996 and put on quarters for 48 hours.  His  injury  occurred  as
he bent over to install a gear pin under the wheel  well  of  the  aircraft.
In April 1997, he underwent Laminectomy  and  Discectomy  of  his  last  two
discs in the lumbar area.  He was removed  from  flying  duties  in  October
1997.  The fact that he incurred a disability  during  an  exercise  is  not
sufficient to support a combat-related  determination.   Injuries  sustained
by falling off or working on a military device, where  the  injury  was  not
caused  by  the  device  itself,  but  instead  error/misjudgment,  are  not
considered eligible for  CRSC.  In  this  case  the  injury  occurred  while
bending to install a gear pin.   Other  than  his  statement,  there  is  no
documentation that his  condition  is  the  result  of  other  than  routine
causes/exposures of  his  particular  physical  makeup  after  18  years  of
military service.

The DPPD evaluation is at Exhibit C.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

Applicant reiterates that he has a disability rated at 60%  and  his  injury
was incurred during the performance of operational related duty as  required
to be eligible for CRSC.  Applicant provides an account of  the  mission  in
which he states his injury was incurred and  states  that  after  the  ninth
hour of the training mission the aircraft experienced a hard landing and  he
began experiencing a sharp pain in his lower back and leg.  He  figured  the
pain was due to fatigue and went  on  to  complete  the  last  hour  of  the
mission.  At the completion of the mission he went outside the  aircraft  to
complete his post-flight duties.  Upon  entering  the  wheel  well  for  pin
installation he felt a pop in his lower back.  Treatment  after  the  injury
resulted in surgery six months after the injury.  The six-month delay  added
to the permanent nerve damage in his back.   If  his  condition  was  normal
wear and tear as suggested by DPPD then it stands to reason  that  prior  to
that day in question he would have  been  treated  for  some  type  of  back
problem.  By stating that  his  injury  was  the  result  of  poor  decision
making, DPPD is trying to shift the  blame  to  him.   He  was  required  by
regulation to enter the nose wheel well area and any way  you  look  at  it,
the injury occurred while he was on or attached to the aircraft.

In support of his response, applicant provided a personal  statement  and  a
copy of his quarters authorization  slip.   His  complete  submission,  with
attachment, is at Exhibit E.

_________________________________________________________________

ADDITIONAL AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

The BCMR Medical  Consultant  recommends  denial.   The  Medical  Consultant
states he developed symptoms  of  a  herniated  disc  following  a  training
flight in October 1996.  He contend his herniated discs were due to  the  42
assault  landings  performed  during  the  training  flight;  however,   the
preponderance of the medical  evidence  indicates  the  inciting  event  was
picking up and installing a landing gear pin following the completion  of  a
training flight.   A  completely  normal  lumbar  spine  does  not  herniate
intervertebral discs as  a  result  of  C-130  landings,  including  assault
landings.    Although   assault   landings   may   aggravate    pre-existing
intervertebral disc disease on an occupational basis,  the  contribution  is
not the sole or direct cause.

The Medical Consultant Evaluation is at Exhibit G.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF ADDITIONAL AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

Applicant states in accordance with  Air  Force  regulations,  aircrew  duty
time begins 2 hours and 15 minutes prior to flight and ends when all  flight
checklists have been completed.  Pre and post-flight duties  are  considered
flight duties.  Therefore, if his injury had been  incurred  installing  the
pin then it should be considered during the performance  of  flight  duties.
Applicant reiterates that he initially injured his back while  accomplishing
42 assault landings.  His initial medical  diagnosis,  made  without  x-rays
and an MRI, was a muscle spasm.   The  herniated  disc  was  not  discovered
until after the x-ray and MRI were performed.  The  flight  surgeon  in  his
report one month later indicated that he initially injured his  back  during
flight.  The installation of the gear pin did not  create  his  problem,  it
merely identified it.  With regard to his claims  for  compensation  due  to
Agent Orange and PTSD, applicant states that his claim  was  denied  by  the
DVA; however his DVA claim is currently pending appeal.

His complete submission, with attachments, is at Exhibit I.

_________________________________________________________________

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-
03094 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 10 Sep 03, w/atchs.
    Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
    Exhibit C.  Letter, AFPC/DPPD, dated 17 Dec 03.
    Exhibit D.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 9 Jan 04.
    Exhibit E.  Letter, Applicant, dated 15 Jan 04, w/atch.
    Exhibit F.  Letter, SAF/MRBC, dated 9 Jul 04.
    Exhibit G.  Letter, BCMR Medical Consultant, dated 22 Sep 04.
    Exhibit H.  Letter, SAF/MRBC, dated 19 Oct 04.
    Exhibit I.  Letter, Applicant, undated, w/atchs.




                                   THOMAS S. MARKIEWICZ
                                   Chair