RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
             AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF:      DOCKET NUMBER:  BC-2003-04056
            INDEX CODE:  108.07
            COUNSEL:  NONE

            HEARING DESIRED:  NO

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

His service-connected medical conditions, degenerative  arthritis,  loss  of
motion of all fingers, limited motion of lumbar  spine,  bilateral  shoulder
condition, and impaired hearing, be assessed as combat related in  order  to
qualify for compensation  under  the  Combat  Related  Special  Compensation
(CRSC) Act.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

He served in the Army in a combat capacity for 34 months  during  World  War
II (WWII).  The remainder of his career he served in  the  Air  Force  as  a
mechanic.  He was around loud noises made by tanks and aircraft.   He  spent
most of his lifetime in the military and therefore,  his  disabilities  were
incurred in the military.  Some of his disabilities can be  related  to  his
service in the Army and due to combat and adverse living conditions.

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

_________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

Applicant enlisted in the Regular Army on  15  Mar  41.   He  served  as  an
Automotive Mechanic until his discharge on 21 Apr  48.   He  contracted  his
initial enlistment in the Regular Air Force on 22 Apr 48  and  served  as  a
Vehicle Maintenance Technician.  He was progressively promoted to the  grade
of master sergeant, having assumed that grade effective and with a  date  of
rank of 1 Jun 52.  He voluntary retired from the Air Force  on  30  Apr  67,
having served 23 years, 6 months, and 19 days on active duty.

His CRSC application was disapproved on 28 Oct 03 based upon the  fact  that
his service-connected medical conditions were determined not to  be  combat-
related.

_________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

AFPC/DPPD recommends denial.  DPPD states his records  do  indicate  he  was
treated for the listed disabilities although the disabilities  are  not  the
result of combat related acts, instrumentality of war or  due  to  hazardous
service.  A 30 Mar 67, Physical Evaluation Board (PEB)  hearing  found  that
he was fit for duty at that time.   The PEB also did  not  reveal  that  his
disabilities were incurred in time of war  or  were  the  direct  result  of
armed conflict or caused by instrumentality of war.  There is no  record  of
any particular injury that could account for the onset of  his  disabilities
other than the mechanical work he mentioned, which is not a  combat  related
activity.  His hearing loss was not noted until his physical examination  of
1964, which is over twenty years after WWII and is  determined  to  be  non-
combat related.  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 separation medical examination dated 24 Sep 45 found  him  to  be
without medical defects and recorded no history of injury during his  period
of active military service during WWII.  His records for  the  remainder  of
his career make no reference to injuries incurred as  a  result  of  combat,
military  exercises,  or  military  equipment.   He   was   diagnosed   with
degenerative arthritis of his hands, which at the  time  of  his  retirement
was felt to be mild and consistent with his age.  There is  no  evidence  of
combat injuries in the records and his duties do not  qualify  as  hazardous
service.  Performance  of  routine  vehicle  maintenance  duties  is  not  a
circumstance unique to combat.  He contends his disabilities are related  to
duties performing maintenance on or around tanks  and  near  airplanes.   In
order to meet the instrumentality of war criteria, 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.  Injury by  working  on  or  lifting  an
inanimate military device, or part of a military  device,  or  falling  off,
tripping over or running into  such  devices  is  not  considered  as  being
directly  caused  by  the  device  itself.   In  order   to   qualify,   the
circumstances would have to involve actual functioning of the device in  its
intended purpose as an instrumentality of war, or as a result of the  unique
military design.  The Medical Consultant Evaluation is at Exhibit E.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF ADDITIONAL AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

A copy  of  the  additional  Air  Force  evaluation  was  forwarded  to  the
applicant on 10 Nov 04 for review and comment within 30 days.   As  of  this
date, this office has received no response.

_________________________________________________________________

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-
04056 in Executive Session on 23 Feb 05, 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 Nov 03, w/atchs.
    Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
    Exhibit C.  Letter, AFPC/DPPD, dated 16 Feb 04.
    Exhibit D.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 20 Feb 04.
    Exhibit E.  Letter, BCMR Medical Consultant, dated 5 Nov 04.
    Exhibit F.  Letter, SAF/MRBC, dated 10 Nov 04.




                                   THOMAS S. MARKIEWICZ
                                   Chair