RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
             AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF:      DOCKET NUMBER:  BC-2003-04226
            INDEX CODE:  108.07
            COUNSEL:  NONE

            HEARING DESIRED:  YES

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

His  service-connected  medical  condition,  bilateral  hearing   loss,   be
assessed as combat related in order to qualify for  compensation  under  the
Combat Related Special Compensation (CRSC) Act.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

He was exposed to a single loud blast from an F-4 aircraft  in  August  1966
while on the flightline waiting to board a helicopter.  His ears roared  and
ached for days and he was temporarily deaf.  His  disabilities  were  caused
by continuous exposure to F-4 noise without being provided  ear  protection.
It has been medically determined that total deafness is  often  incurred  by
being exposed to loud noises over a period of time  and  that  the  loss  is
progressive as his was.  He meets the remaining CRSC criteria  and  believes
the CRSC board either misinterpreted the CRSC guidelines or  application  of
the criteria in his case is not fair.

In support of his request,  applicant  provided  a  personal  statement  and
documentation pertaining to his CRSC denial.  His complete submission,  with
attachments, is at Exhibit A.

_________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

Applicant contracted his initial enlistment in the Regular Air Force  on  30
Apr 52.  He was progressively promoted to the grade of  technical  sergeant,
having assumed that grade effective and with a date of rank  of  1  May  67.
He was stationed in Vietnam from October  1965  through  October  1966.   He
voluntarily retired from the Air Force on 31 Jul 72.  He served 20 years,  3
months and 1 day on active duty.

His CRSC application was  denied  on  28  Aug  03  based  on  the  fact  his
bilateral hearing loss was not determined to be the direct  result  of  duty
performed    under    conditions     simulating     war     or     hazardous
service/instrumentality of war.

_________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

AFPC/DPPD recommends denial.  DPPD states his records reflect  hearing  loss
for both ears dating to the latter part of his career.  At the time  of  his
retirement  physical  he  denied  otoxins,  vertigo,  or  ear  fullness  and
tinnitus, though the physician's impression was  bilateral  sensory  hearing
loss on his left ear and conductive deafness on his right ear.  Although  he
had been in a motorcycle accident and had a head injury, he claimed  he  had
no serious head trauma.  There is no documentation of trauma (F-4 blast)  or
that he was constantly on the flightline exposed  to  loud  aircraft  noise.
Even though a number  of  factors  such  as  aging,  ototoxin  drugs,  viral
infections and excessive noise exposure may contribute to hearing  loss,  he
was NCOIC of Claims Section for the Staff Judge  Advocate  and  exposure  to
noise is not of record to concede and  qualify  him  for  CRSC.   He  has  a
history of external otitis  and  frequent  ear  infections.   His  bilateral
hearing loss is documented as incurred while  on  active  duty  but  is  not
considered to be combat-related.   Based on a review of his DVA records  and
personnel files, his impaired hearing and tinnitus are not  combat  related.
The DPPD evaluation is at Exhibit C.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

Applicant states his motorcycle accident occurred while traveling  about  10
mph.  The only injury to his head was a cut  on  his  lower  lip  and  three
loose teeth.  The accident was minor.  He was not even thrown off the  bike.
 So that accident did not contribute to any loss of hearing.  He  has  never
taken ototoxin drugs and if aging and  viral  infections  were  contributing
factors, the fact remains the onset of his hearing loss can be  traced  back
to the initial F-4 blast and numerous close exposures to he aircraft  making
daily bomb runs.  While stationed at Ubon AB in Vietnam, 86% of all  bombing
was reported to have been from that  base.   He  worked  in  a  headquarters
building, which was located very close to the active runway.   His  deafness
was caused  by  an  instrumentality  of  war  and  is  combat-related.   His
complete response is at Exhibit E.

_________________________________________________________________

ADDITIONAL AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

The BCMR Medical  Consultant  recommends  denial.   The  Medical  Consultant
states there is no evidence in his  records  that  supports  his  contention
that his hearing loss was caused by an instrumentality of war.   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.   His  non-flightline
occupation is not one, which would have exposed him to sustained high  noise
levels necessary to produce hearing loss.  Furthermore,  an  office  near  a
flightline is indistinguishable from offices located near civilian  aviation
activities.   He had pre-service occupations that are associated  with  high
noise exposures and was diagnosed with otosclerosis,  a  hereditary  disease
that is a cause  of  sensorineural  hearing  loss.   Further,  documentation
indicates the onset of symptomatic hearing loss before  the  reported  acute
noise exposure in 1966.  The Medical Consultant Evaluation is at Exhibit F.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF ADDITIONAL AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

Applicant states his work on his parents farm was limited  to  planting  and
hoeing produce and plowing and cultivating with a mule.  They did  not  have
a tractor until he was 16 years of age and  only  his  father  operated  it.
When his father was 15 years old he jumped in a vat of water and acid in  an
attempt to save his sibling.  The solution got into his ears,  which  caused
his hearing loss.  His mother and grandparents  did  not  have  any  hearing
problems.  None of his siblings or children has any  hearing  problems.   So
the likelihood that his hearing loss  is  hereditary  is  nil.   His  duties
while working for Chrysler included sitting  on  a  platform  overlooking  a
conveyor belt assembly line of transmissions and differentials.   There  was
no heavy machinery in the area and the noise was very low.  So  he  was  not
exposed to loud noise there.  Further, there was  no  hearing  loss  at  the
time he entered the Air Force.  While stationed at  Holloman  AFB,  NM,  his
barracks was 100 yards from the  aircraft  tie  down  pits.   There  he  was
constantly exposed to the loud noises.  It is absurd to  say  this  type  of
noise and  the  noise  encountered  in  Vietnam  is  indistinguishable  from
offices located near civilian aviation activities.  In 1960 he was  accepted
into the Air Force legal system and completed the U.S.  Navy  Stenomask  and
Legalyeoman Course.  He recorded at  Article  32  and  other  investigations
using the stenomask for the next few years without  any  problems  with  his
hearing.   His  first  problems  were  encountered  in  hearing   low   tone
conversations in 1962 or 1963.  His hearing  loss  continued  to  degenerate
until being exposed to extreme F-4  noise  in  1966.   Then  it  accelerated
drastically until his  ear  surgery  in  March  1972.   The  surgery  caused
further hearing loss and from that time continued until deafness.   Although
he incurred various degrees  of  hearing  loss  dating  back  to  his  early
military career, the fact remains the most significant damage was caused  by
F-4  noise.   It  should  be  clear  his  hearing  loss  was  caused  by  an
instrumentality of war and  there  is  a  direct  relationship  between  his
hearing loss and  the  military  weaponry.   His  complete  response  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.

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-2003-
04226 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 21 Nov 03, w/atchs.
    Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
    Exhibit C.  Letter, AFPC/DPPD, dated 23 Mar 04.
    Exhibit D.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 2 Apr 04.
    Exhibit E.  Letter, Applicant, dated 12 Apr 04.
    Exhibit F.  Letter, BCMR Medical Consultant, dated 10 Aug 04.
    Exhibit G.  Letter, SAF/MRBC, dated 19 Oct 04.
    Exhibit H.  Letter, Applicant, dated 26 Oct 04.




                                   THOMAS S. MARKIEWICZ
                                   Chair