RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
             AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF:      DOCKET NUMBER:  BC-2003-04306
            INDEX CODE:  108.07
            COUNSEL:  NONE

            HEARING DESIRED:  NO

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

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

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

His back injury is the result of his duties as a Helicopter Flight  Engineer
Mechanic.  In the performance of his aerial duties he wore approximately  30
pounds of equipment, while in a crouched or kneeling position for a  minimum
of three to nine hours.   In  Kadena  AB,  Japan  he  was  seen  by  several
physicians for recurrent back pain who noted that his injuries  were  caused
by vibration stresses from flying and exacerbated by an increased amount  of
flying over the years.  In 1972, while avoiding  an  attack  in  Vietnam,  a
coworker landed in the small of his back in a sandbag  foxhole.   After  the
attack he was sore and could not lift for about a week.  His  knee  injuries
were caused by hard landings during Combat Search and  Rescue  exercises  in
1981.  His hearing loss is directly related to his 15 years of  exposure  to
noise from helicopter rotors, jet  engines,  vibration  of  helicopters  and
noise from weapons firing during actual and simulated combat missions.

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

_________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

Applicant contracted his initial enlistment in the Regular Air  Force  on  6
Jan 71.  He was  progressively  promoted  to  the  grade  of  senior  master
sergeant, having assumed that grade effective and with a date of rank  of  1
Feb 88.  He served as a Helicopter Mechanic through 1974,  as  a  Helicopter
Flight Mechanic through 1979, and as a Helicopter  Flight  Engineer  through
the remainder of his career.  He served in Vietnam from April  1972  through
November 1974.  He voluntarily retired from the Air Force on 30 Jun 91.   He
served 20 years, 5 months, and 25 days on active duty.

On 14 Apr 04, his CRSC application was approved for impaired  hearing.   His
remaining service connected medical conditions were  determined  not  to  be
combat related.

Documentation provided reflects  a  DVA  combined  rating  of  70%  for  his
service-connected medical condition.

_________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

AFPC/DPPD recommends  denial.   DPPD  states  there  is  no  record  of  any
particular back injury that he encountered to  consider  as  combat-related,
just repetitive trauma from being an aircrew member for  twenty  years.   He
was treated for back pain dating back from late 1978  to  the  1980s,  which
increased over time.  He reported to the DVA multiple upper and  lower  back
injuries together with a knee injury and  ankle  injury  occurring  in  1972
from repeated hard landings and jumps from a helicopter.  A  review  of  his
medical  records  reveals  no  record  of  such  injuries,  although   while
stationed at Kadena AB, he injured his back  lifting  furniture.   His  knee
problems date back to 1981 when he injured  them  while  playing  basketball
and from a bicycle accident.  His left ankle was  injured  when  he  slipped
and fell getting into his car and right  ankle  was  injured  while  playing
basketball.  Records made available show normal duties performed during  the
completion of his  military  responsibilities  and  do  not  show  a  direct
correlation to combat participation.  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 23  Apr
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 he asserts his back was injured during a  rocket  attack  in  Vietnam
either by falling off a helicopter or  when  a  comrade  fell  on  his  back
seeking shelter.  He also asserts his back and knee conditions  were  caused
by his duties during aerial flight.   As  a  flight  mechanic/engineer,  his
duties included operating an aerial hoist and  as  an  aerial  gunner  (when
flying combat missions, likely only while assigned to Thailand from July  to
December 1975).  Aerial flight is an episodic occurrence during  the  course
of an aircrew's total duty time, and for most the majority  of  the  working
time  is  actually  spent  on  the  ground.   CRSC  claims  for  spinal   or
musculoskeletal conditions based on wear and  tear  in  the  performance  of
normal duties, as aircrew during flight  does  not  meet  the  standard  for
direct causality.  In the  absence  of  a  discrete,  significant  traumatic
event  productive  of  biomechanically  significant   change   of   anatomic
structure, certain conditions would have developed regardless of the  aerial
flight.  Other physical activities that are  also  considered  as  wear  and
tear  contributors  to  symptoms   include   ground   duties,   recreational
activities, and non-combat/hazardous duty related injuries.   His  assertion
that he was confined to a  small  space  in  awkward  positions  for  entire
flights is without merit since  his  span  of  responsibility  was  for  the
proper mechanical operation of the entire aircraft and he was free  to  move
about the cabin during flight in the conduct of his duties.   The  H-53  and
the H-3 are large helicopters that can carry 55 passengers and  over  30,000
pounds of cargo.  His duties operating an aerial  hoist  or  gun  would  not
span entire missions,  for  every  mission,  over  14  years.   His  records
contain an injury, the loss of the distal aspect of his  right  ring  finger
when the wench cable crushed it in 1975.  However, this injury is  rated  at
zero percent by the DVA and does not qualify for CRSC.  All  other  injuries
were incurred on the ground in non-duty related activities (slipped on  ice,
riding a bicycle, playing basketball and pitching hay).  Although  his  back
pain was reported in 1988 to be aggravated by his duties while  flying,  the
original injury predates his duties as a  flight  engineer.   Aerial  flight
did not directly cause his back condition, merely aggravated  symptoms  from
a pre-existing injury.  The Medical Consultant evaluation is at Exhibit F.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF ADDITIONAL AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

A copy of the Air Force evaluation was forwarded to the applicant on  3  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-
04306 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 24 Dec 03, w/atchs.
    Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
    Exhibit C.  Letter, AFPC/DPPD, dated 8 Apr 04, w/atchs.
    Exhibit D.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 23 Apr 04.
    Exhibit E.  Letter, BCMR Medical Consultant, dated 1 Nov 04.
    Exhibit F.  Letter, SAF/MRBC, dated 3 Nov 04.




                                   THOMAS S. MARKIEWICZ
                                   Chair