RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS
IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2003-03641
INDEX CODE: 108.07
COUNSEL: NONE
HEARING DESIRED: NO
_________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:
1. His service-connected medical conditions, intevebral disc syndrome,
tinnitus, and nervous condition, be assessed as combat related in order to
qualify for compensation under the Combat Related Special Compensation
(CRSC) Act.
2. Corrections be made to his Aircraft Accident Report.
_________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:
His application for CRSC benefits was disapproved based on criteria that
was not made known to him, to include provisions that simply cannot and do
not apply to his particular situation. His injuries are the result of an
accident in which he was a surviving crewmember of a B-47 aircraft that
crashed 70 miles from home base on January 12, 1961. His request was
denied because it was a requirement that a commander or medical officer
witness the injury. The authenticity of the crash is available from a
multiplicity of records. A spinal disc injury is an injury that is not
visible to the naked eye, hence it cannot be witnessed. His acute and
chronic knee and leg pain he suffered for months following the accident
were symptomatic of a severe back injury. His nervous system condition is
a direct result of the aircraft accident. His claims are based upon and
occurred during his 10 years as a B-47 combat crewmember. Under the
description of what constitutes combat-related; namely while engaged in
hazardous (combat simulated, aerial flight) and duty under conditions
simulating war (as was their 24 hour airborne alert operations).
In support of his request applicant provided a copy of his DD form 214, his
retirement order, and two Officer Effectiveness Reports (OERs). His
complete submission, with attachments, is at Exhibit A.
_________________________________________________________________
STATEMENT OF FACTS:
Applicant entered active duty on 9 Jan 51 and served in an enlisted status
until his commissioning on 20 Sep 57. He served as a B-47 and B-52 pilot.
On 12 Jan 61, applicant ejected out of a B-47 he was co-piloting when the
aircraft developed uncorrectable control problems at approximately 15,700
feet. He voluntarily retired for length of service on 1 Jul 71. He served
20 years, 5 months, and 22 days on active duty.
A Department of Veterans Affairs (DVA) rating decision, dated 4 Sep 97
reflects the applicant was rated at 60% for degenerative disc disease, 30%
for headaches, and 10% for tinnitus, for a combined rating of 80%.
His CRSC application was disapproved on 20 Oct 03 based on the evidence
submitted with the application as not supporting approval of the
disabilities claimed as combat related under the established guidelines for
CRSC. The portion of his application in which he claimed tinnitus as an
eligible condition was approved with an effective date of 1 Jan 04 and a
percentage of 10%.
_________________________________________________________________
AIR FORCE EVALUATION:
AFPC/DPPD recommends denial. DPPD states reviewing medical records,
aircraft accident reports and DVA determinations, the evidence indicates
that the applicant suffered only abrasions and contusions from an aircraft
ejection in January 1961 in which he landed on top of a tree causing minor
injuries. The earliest evidence of his Spinal Disc condition was noted
when he was diagnosed with osteoarthritis in September 1987, 16 years after
his retirement. He contends that even though he suffered pain, he was
never properly x-rayed or diagnosed for the injuries he sustained. The DVA
originally denied his claim for the back and hip conditions, but based
purely on speculation, it was granted to his benefit with no specific
evidence and documentation. The DVA conceded that it was the result of
trauma experience following the ejection even though the evidence was not
considered so evenly balanced, showing that his hip and back conditions
were shown to be symptomatic many years following his retirement. Having
reviewed his medical and personnel records, and documents supporting the
aircraft accident it appears that his injuries are not considered to be
eligible for CRSC. There is no documentation that he suffered his Nervous
Disorder other than an anxiety episode a couple of times prior to his
scheduled flying. He was not grounded or taken off of flying status. He
claims his anxiety was accompanied by chronic migraine headaches due to
stress after flying his missions. Though he complained of headaches
throughout his career, he had this problem during his teenage years prior
to service. Job related stress is not considered unique to the military.
Therefore, his Nervous Disorder is not eligible for CRSC. The DPPD
evaluation is at Exhibit C.
_________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:
Applicant states that he underwent major surgery on his left hip on 10 Jun
04. The attending physician states in his observations that the "most
likely' event that could possibly have precipitated, exacerbated, and
caused his later incapacitation and eventual disablement can best be
attributed to the severe, acute, and traumatic experience his body incurred
at the time of impacting the tree that saved his life in 1961." This
authenticates that from 1961 to 2004 the attending physicians have
faithfully recorded that the injuries sustained in the 1961 ejection are
the reason for five subsequent major operations.
In support of his response, applicant provided a personal statement, a
statement from his physician, and documents extracted from his medical
record.
In an amended response to the Air Force evaluation applicant states the
Aircraft Accident Report contains errors and was not prepared by the
individual who performed the emergency parachute jump (himself) as directed
by the form itself. The narrative is written in third person singular and
signed by Major B--- (who served on the staff of the 2nd Bombardment
Squadron). He did not write the narrative and never saw it until it was
received during his various filings with the VA. It contains many errors
which, if corrected, could help his cause significantly. The Medical
Report indicates that he "showed no anxiety." What it doesn't state is
that he was in a state of "extreme shock"...and unable to reconcile the
time of day within 7 hours on the day of the accident. A comment was made
that no x-rays were taken. Throughout the days following the accident, and
in spite of his complaints of knee and leg pain there was never an attempt
to locate the source causing such pain. Years later, the problem was
identified as a ruptured disc that dislodged the routing of his sciatic
nerve to the point where the nerve physically was looped around the disc
and totally incapacitated him. There is sufficient evidence in his medical
record to directly connect his spinal disc condition to the accident that
occurred while on a Combat Crew Training Mission. While it may be the
contention of the DPPD that his continued flying status gives the
indication that his injuries were not severe, he knows that the pain in his
legs began within hours of the event and continued for the remainder of his
military career and later. He lived with the pain, which was unbearable
after each and every flight, lasting usually for upwards of 12 hours. He
continued because he believed in serving in his capacity faithfully, with
credibility, honor, and commitment. Applicant takes exception to the DPPD
remark that the DVA originally denied his claim for the back and hip
conditions, but based purely on speculation, it was granted to his benefit
with no specific evidence and documentation. He has been intimately
involved with the DVA for years, and does not know of any circumstances
regarding his health condition, in which an award or claim was based upon
"no specific evidence and documentation." On the contrary, his medical
file consists of hundreds of pages along with a considerable amount of
progress notes, medical reports, examinations, and interviews. Regarding
his condition of nervous system, applicant states the problem that existed
before his accident was recurring "headaches." Subsequent to the accident,
anxiety with accompanying headaches began.
In support of his submission, applicant provided a personal statement,
documents extracted from his medical records, and a document associated
with his CRSC application.
His complete submission, with attachments, is at Exhibit E.
_________________________________________________________________
ADDITIONAL AIR FORCE EVALUATION:
The BCMR Medical Consultant recommends denial. The Medical Consultant
states the applicant bailed out of a disabled B-47 aircraft in January
1961. His medical records show abrasions, bruising and knee pain following
the incident. There is a single service medical record entry four years
after the aircraft incident for low back pain diagnosed as paravertebral
muscle spasm. There is no evidence that indicates his back pain was
related to the ejection or parachute landing. His service records show he
was hospitalized in March 1951 for back pain due to lumbosacral pain while
digging a trench and he was hospitalized in June 1952 for upper back pain
due to lifting shower boards in the barracks. He underwent back surgery
approximately 15 to 16 years after the incident. Evidence of record does
not support causal relationship. It may be reasonable to speculate that
the incident may have contributed to his back condition, but the medical
record finds nothing to support this. The medical record documents a
history of nervous condition prior to the January 1961 incident and only
two entries for anxiety following the incident indicating the condition was
not significantly worsened. He continued to fly bomber aircraft for nearly
ten more years. The fact that a member incurred the disability during a
military exercise or while participating in an exercise is not sufficient
to support a combat-related determination. There must be a direct causal
relationship between the unique aspects of the exercise (or conditions
simulating war) and the disability. The Medical Consultant Evaluation is
at Exhibit F.
ODUSD(MPP)/Comp reviewed the applicant's request and concurs with the
findings and recommendation of the BCMR Medical Consultant. The ODUSD
evaluation is at Exhibit G.
_________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF ADDITIONAL AIR FORCE EVALUATION:
Applicant states that the Medical Consultant bases a considerable amount of
his evaluation on the information contained in the aircraft accident
report. The information contained in the aircraft accident report was
prepared by an officer other than himself and was based entirely on hearsay
information. No place on the form can be found any collaboration with the
flight surgeon, medical examiner, or medical officer. Certain parts of the
form identify him as the navigator showing there was an apparent mix-up
between the completion of the forms pertaining to himself (co-pilot) and
the navigator. The applicant provides his account of what the accident
report should state and adds the injuries he sustained in the B-47 ejection
fully qualifies him for CRSC. The nervous condition he experienced after
the ejection, continued through his remaining years in service, was
identified by the DVA as service-connected. Leg pain and knee pain of the
nature described are both symptomatic of a back injury and his record
clearly documents these symptoms from the day of the ejection. The fact
that the medical record shows no direct evidence or connection of such pain
with a back injury is not his fault. It as an omission on the part of the
attending physicians who should have determined from his frequent visits
and complaints of such pain that the cause was due to sciatic nerve damage
(brought on by spinal disc rupture). He continued flying; however,
subsequent to each and every mission, it took 12-24 hours to recover from
the pain experienced subsequent to the missions. He provided two
documents, which he believes should carry as much or more credibility, than
that contained in much of the "history" being reviewed. The Medical
Consultant points out that on his retirement physical he did not mark "YES'
to the question of "have you had, or have you now, nervous trouble of any
sort" inferring that his claim for disability for a nervous condition is
without substance. His medical records do indicate that he had such a
nervous condition so the obvious conclusion is that his answer should have
been YES. This nervous condition has persisted to this day, has been
addressed and helped through the years by the efforts of the DVA and
medication. His complete submission, is at Exhibit I.
_________________________________________________________________
THE BOARD CONCLUDES THAT:
1. The applicant has exhausted all remedies provided by existing law or
regulations.
2. The applicant requests changes be made to his 12 Jan 61 Aircraft
Accident Report. His request for corrections to his Aircraft Accident
Report was not filed within three years after the alleged error or
injustice was discovered, or could have been discovered, as required by
Section 1552, Title 10, United States Code (10 USC 1552), and Air Force
Instruction 36-2603. Although the applicant asserts a date of discovery
which would, if applicable, make the application timely, the essential
facts which give rise to the application were known to the applicant long
before the asserted date of discovery. Knowledge of those facts
constituted the date of discovery and the beginning of the three-year
period for filing. Thus, his request pertaining to the Aircraft Accident
Report is untimely. Paragraph b of 10 USC 1552 permits us, in our
discretion, to excuse untimely filing in the interest of justice. We have
carefully reviewed applicant's submission and the entire record, and we do
not find a sufficient basis to excuse the untimely filing of this
application. The applicant has not shown a plausible reason for delay in
filing, and we are not persuaded that the record raises issues of error or
injustice that require resolution on its merits.
3. The applicant's request pertaining to his service-connected conditions
is timely filed.
4. Insufficient relevant evidence has been presented to demonstrate the
existence of error or injustice with respect to his request that his
service-connected medical conditions qualify for compensation under the
CRSC Act. 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 persuasive 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-
03641 in Executive Session on 6 Oct 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 27 Oct 03, w/.atchs.
Exhibit B. Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
Exhibit C. Letter, AFPC/DPPD, dated 26 Jan 04.
Exhibit D. Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 6 Feb 04.
Exhibit E. Letter, Applicant, dated 10 Feb 04, w/atchs.
Exhibit F. Letter, BCMR Medical Consultant, dated 24 Feb 04.
Exhibit G. Letter, ODUSD(MPP)/Comp, dated 21 Jul 04.
Exhibit H. Letter, SAF/MRBC, dated 28 Jul 04.
Exhibit I. Letter, Applicant, dated 12 Aug 04, w/atchs
THOMAS S. MARKIEWICZ
Chair
AF | BCMR | CY2005 | BC-2004-00768
In the absence of a specific traumatic event resulting in significant, documented spine injury, it is impossible to attribute direct causation of degenerative spine disease to aerial flight. _________________________________________________________________ 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...
AF | BCMR | CY2005 | BC-2004-02060
_________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: His injuries were incurred when he fell off a ladder entering a B-29 aircraft. DPPD states a review of his service and DVA medical records show his degenerative arthritis and limited motion of arm are not combat related. 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...
AF | BCMR | CY2004 | BC-2003-02963
The DPPD evaluation is at Exhibit C. _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: Applicant states he was supporting the war directly and indirectly when he incurred his injury. 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...
AF | BCMR | CY2008 | BC-2008-00389
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2008-00389 INDEX CODE: 108.07 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: His service-connected medical condition, degenerative arthritis of the spine, be assessed as combat-related in order to qualify for compensation under the Combat Related Special Compensation (CRSC) Act. 100% of his Vietnam flight...
AF | BCMR | CY2004 | BC-2003-02532
His next entry for back pain was on 21 Mar 85 when he sought care for low back pain incurred while lifting a manhole cover. 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...
AF | BCMR | CY2004 | BC-2003-02830
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2003-02830 INDEX CODE: 108.07 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: YES _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: All of his service-connected medical conditions be assessed as combat related in order to qualify for compensation under the Combat Related Special Compensation (CRSC) Act. There are no service medical record entries for injuries...
AF | BCMR | CY2004 | BC-2003-02824
Before he ruptured the disc in his lower back he did not have any serious back problems. The Medical Consultant states the applicant's medical records contain an entry dated 13 Nov 70 for low back pain incurred lifting an 80 lb. 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,...
AF | BCMR | CY2004 | BC-2003-03911
A review of his medical records failed to show that his back injury was sustained on 12 Nov 65 as a result of a missile motor slipping its cradle during assembly in support of combat training missions. The Medical Consultant states a single medical record entry indicates he presented for lumbosacral back pain on 12 Nov 65 but no mechanism of injury is documented and there are no work-site accident or injury reports present in the records that may provide additional information. ...
AF | BCMR | CY2004 | BC-2003-03103
_________________________________________________________________ AIR FORCE EVALUATION: AFPC/DPPD recommends denial. The fact that a member may incur a medical condition during a period of war or while performing combat operations is not sufficient evidence to support a combat-related determination. Exhibit C. Letter, AFPC/DPPD, dated 20 Jan 04.
AF | BCMR | CY2004 | BC-2003-03621
_________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: His AF Form 356, Findings and Recommended Disposition of USAF Physical Evaluation Board, line 10(b) is marked YES, as the disability did occur during a time of war in the line of duty. What the Air Force is telling him is that in no way an Air Force member can have a combat-related injury if they were medically retired and entered the Air Force prior to the date indicated on the form. DPPD states the...