RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
             AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF:      DOCKET NUMBER:  BC-2004-01042
            INDEX CODE:  108.07
            COUNSEL:  NONE

            HEARING DESIRED:  NO

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

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

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

His hearing problems were incurred while serving in the Army in  Korea  from
1952 through 1953.  He was an artillery mechanic and was required to  be  on
the M1 guns every time they fired.  He was once blown  off  his  feet  by  a
muzzle blast.  In 1957, he was having a hard time hearing so he got  out  of
the service.  In 1976 he began occasional use of hearing  aids.   He  joined
the National Guard and served  until  he  was  separated  at  age  60.   His
records were destroyed by fire.  He never dreamed that he needed to  keep  a
copy of his records.  He was never provided any ear protection when  in  the
Army or told that the noise would have an adverse affect on his hearing.

In support of his request, applicant provided a personal statement,  his  DD
Form 214, documentation associated  with  his  CRSC  denial,  and  documents
extracted  from  his  medical  records.   His  complete   submission,   with
attachments, is at Exhibit A.

_________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

Applicant served in the U.S. Army from 31 Oct 51 through 2  Jul  57  and  in
the Army Reserves from 3 Jul 57 through 30 Oct 59.  He enlisted in  the  Air
National Guard on 9 Oct 76.  He was progressively promoted to the  grade  of
senior master sergeant.  On 8 Jan 94, he voluntarily retired  from  the  Air
National Guard.

His CRSC application was approved on 9 Jun 04 for his hearing loss rated  at
50% and denied for tinnitus based on the fact  that  his  tinnitus  was  not
determined to be combat-related.

_________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

AFPC/DPPD recommends denial.  DPPD states  in  order  for  his  tinnitus  to
qualify for CRSC there  must  be  evidence  that  this  condition,  when  he
attributes to noise exposure during his career  as  an  artillery  mechanic,
manifested while in service.  There  is  no  documentation  in  his  service
records that would support his claim.  The DPPD evaluation is at Exhibit C.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

Applicant states he reported to the hospital in  Misawa  Japan  in  December
1953 and was told by the physician that the ringing in he ears was  from  an
artillery shot that knocked him off his feet and nothing could  be  done  to
stop the ringing sensation.  In May 1954 he was  admitted  for  an  internal
infection and spoke with the physician about the ringing in his ear and  was
told the same thing.  Again in 1956  a  different  physician  confirmed  the
previous opinions.

In support of his response, applicant provided  a  personal  statement,  and
documentation extracted from his medical records.   His  complete  response,
with attachments, is at Exhibit E.

_________________________________________________________________

ADDITIONAL AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

The BCMR Medical  Consultant  recommends  denial.   The  Medical  Consultant
states his hearing loss has been attributed as directly  due  to  the  acute
acoustic trauma during service in Korea as an artillery crewmember.  He  did
not complain about tinnitus until  1993.   Tinnitus  can  be  a  symptom  of
virtually any ear condition including hearing loss of  any  cause.   Studies
of  tinnitus  associated  with  acoustic  trauma  indicate  it  is   present
contemporaneously with the acoustic trauma.  While his tinnitus  appears  to
be associated with his progressive hearing loss, there  is  no  evidence  it
was directly caused by the acoustic trauma he experienced in Korea  and  was
not  reported  until  over  thirty  years  later.   The  Medical  Consultant
Evaluation is at Exhibit F.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF ADDITIONAL AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

The fact that his records do not reflect his tinnitus disability is not  his
problem.  He provided the records he has from his  doctor  visits.   If  his
records had not been destroyed in St. Louis, his records would  reflect  the
disability.  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.

_________________________________________________________________

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-2004-
01042 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 26 Mar 04, w/atchs.
    Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
    Exhibit C.  Letter, AFPC/DPPD, dated 9 Jun 04.
    Exhibit D.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 18 Jun 04.
    Exhibit E.  Letter, Applicant, not dated, w/atchs.
    Exhibit F.  Letter, BCMR Medical Consultant, dated 12 Aug 04.
    Exhibit G.  Letter, SAF/MRBC, dated 19 Oct 04.
    Exhibit H.  Letter, Applicant, dated 18 Nov 04.




                                   THOMAS S. MARKIEWICZ
                                   Chair