RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
             AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF:      DOCKET NUMBER:  BC-2003-03150
            INDEX CODE:  108.07
            COUNSEL:  NONE

            HEARING DESIRED:  NO

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

His service-connected medical  condition,  Post  Traumatic  Stress  Disorder
(PTSD), be assessed as combat related in order to qualify  for  compensation
under the Combat Related Special Compensation (CRSC) Act.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

Applicant makes no contentions.  In  support  of  his  request  he  provided
documentation  associated  with   his   initial   CRSC   determination   and
documentation extracted  from  his  Department  of  Veterans  Affairs  (DVA)
records.  His complete submission, with attachments, is at Exhibit A.

_________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

Applicant contracted his initial enlistment in the Regular Air Force  on  26
May 65.  He  was  progressively  promoted  to  the  grade  of  chief  master
sergeant, having assumed that grade effective and with a date of rank  of  1
Dec 01.  He served as a Visual Information Manager.   He  voluntary  retired
from the Air Force for maximum years of service on 1 Jun 95,  having  served
30 years and 5 days on active duty.

His CRSC application was disapproved on 3 Sep 03  based  on  the  fact  that
although his DVA  service-connected  medical  conditions  exceeded  the  60%
rating, his PTSD was determined to be insufficiently documented and was  not
rated.  Subsequent to the determination, his CRSC application  was  approved
for his diabetes mellitus rated at 20%.

_________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

AFPC/DPPD recommends denial.  DPPD states his records do not reflect he  was
treated for any type of anxiety or  depressive  disorders.   He  claims  his
PTSD is due to his Aerial  Combat  Photography  career  and  he  experiences
Vietnam flashbacks.  The  preponderance  of  evidence  shows  normal  duties
performed as an Audio Visual Information Manager and does not show a  direct
correlation to combat participation.  Even though he did not receive any  of
the medals or commendations considered to be  supportive  of  stressors  and
combat exposure, the DVA conceded to his stressful  events  as  due  to  his
duty  as  a  combat  photographer.   None  of  the  documentation  submitted
provided  any  specific  information  regarding  the  circumstances  of  the
stressful  events.   The   applicant   denied   hallucinations,   delusions,
paranoia, or suicidal ideation other than a mild impairment based  on  sleep
disturbance,  intrusive  memories,  and  mild  depression.   His   PTSD   is
determined not to be the result of combat related acts,  instrumentality  of
war, or due to hazardous service.  The DPPD 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 20  Feb
04 for review and comment within 30 days.  As of this date, this office  has
received no response.

_________________________________________________________________

ADDITIONAL AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

The BCMR Medical  Consultant  recommends  denial.   The  Medical  Consultant
states his performance  reports  during  the  period  he  was  stationed  in
Vietnam  indicates  he  was  assigned  to  a  laboratory  processing  aerial
reconnaissance photographs and makes no reference  to  duties  as  a  combat
photographer  or  duties  outside  of  the  photography   laboratory.    His
remaining reports throughout his career  do  not  reflect  circumstances  or
events of a  traumatic  nature  under  conditions  of  combat  or  simulated
combat.  There is no evidence in the record that his PTSD was incurred as  a
direct result of armed conflict, while engaged in hazardous  service,  while
engaged in the performance of duties under conditions simulating war, or  as
a result of an instrumentality of war.

The Medical Consultant Evaluation is at Exhibit E.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF ADDITIONAL AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

Applicant states that he was a lab  technician  ad  performed  other  duties
during the war.  He flew many missions in support of the  ground  troops  to
photograph the war.  All  of  this  was  documented  but  records  were  not
provided to the individuals.  He still has vivid  memories  of  events  that
occurred but does not seek treatment because of  the  backlog  at  the  DVA.
His complete response is at Exhibit G.

_________________________________________________________________

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-
03150 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 15 Sep 03, w/atchs.
    Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
    Exhibit C.  Letter, AFPC/DPPD, dated 6 Feb 04.
    Exhibit D.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 20 Feb 04.
    Exhibit E.  Letter, SAF/MRBC, dated 9 Jul 04.
    Exhibit F.  Letter, BCMR Medical Consultant, dated 13 Sep 04.
    Exhibit G.  Letter, SAF/MRBC, dated 22 Sep 04.
    Exhibit H.  Letter, Applicant, dated 27 Sep 04.




                                   THOMAS S. MARKIEWICZ
                                   Chair