RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
             AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF:      DOCKET NUMBER:  BC-2004-00011
            INDEX CODE:  108.07
            COUNSEL:  NONE

            HEARING DESIRED:  YES

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

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

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

It appears that all medical  records  pertaining  to  his  injuries  are  no
longer available and those who were witnesses are  either  dead  or  he  has
long lost contact with them.  All he can provide is his own  statements  and
the statements of his son and former spouse.  He injured his  back  when  he
dove over and behind an aircraft revetment to avoid a crippled  German  buzz
bomb, which hit and exploded 30 feet away from him.  He was  placed  on  bed
rest until the pain allowed him to return to duty.  When  he  returned  from
the TDY he did not report the incident to  his  medical  clinic.   His  back
continued to  give  him  intermittent  problems  for  years  requiring  heat
therapy, taping and bed rest.  While parachuting to recover  a  spy  balloon
he injured his back and was treated at the clinic for 7-10  days  after  his
return to home base.  Episodes of pain and  mobility  problems  became  more
frequent after this injury.  In most cases  he  treated  the  pains  himself
with heat pads and exercise, but there were time he had to go to  sick  call
because of the pain.  A year or two later he was  hospitalized  and  put  in
traction when the back pain became so unbearable he was unable to stand.

While loading a 500-pound bomb, one of the bombs came loose  from  the  bomb
rack and fell on him knocking him down and  coming  to  rest  on  his  solar
plexus.  This resulted in a small tear in his diaphragm and led  to  stomach
problems.  This marked the beginning of his  acid  reflux  problems.   On  a
training jump, just before touching down, a sudden gust of  wind  swung  him
so that he landed on the back  of  his  head  ending  up  in  a  doubled  up
position.  The pain in his solar plexus area was intense  and  he  is  sure,
further aggravated the old diaphragm injury.

In support  of  his  request,  applicant  provided  personal  statements,  a
statement form his son and former spouse, and documentation  extracted  from
his Department of Veterans  Affairs  and  military  records.   His  complete
submission, with attachments, is at Exhibit A.

_________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

Applicant served in the Army from 6 Jan  43  through  27  Feb  46.   He  was
appointed a second lieutenant, Reserve of the Air Force  on  4 Dec  50.   He
was progressively promoted  to  the  grade  of  lieutenant  colonel,  having
assumed that grade effective and with a date of rank of 12 Sep 67.   He  was
retired by reason of physical disability on 26 Mar 68.  He served 20  years,
1 month, and 22 days on active duty.

Current Department of Veterans Affairs  (DVA)  records  reflect  a  combined
compensable rating of 50% for his unfitting conditions.

His CRSC application was approved on 2 Jan 04  for  his  urinary  condition.
His  request  was  disapproved  for  the  requested  conditions  because  of
insufficient documentation.

_________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

AFPC/DPPD recommends denial.  DPPD states a review of his  DVA  records  and
personnel files shows that his  conditions  are  not  combat  related.   His
medical records were missing when he retired.  Without any specific  medical
documentation to support his claim, his conditions cannot be  classified  as
combat related.  The DPPD evaluation is at Exhibit C.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

Applicant states that  until  recently  he  assumed  there  were  sufficient
records available to substantiate the causes of his back and  hiatal  hernia
injuries.   Otherwise,  applicant  questions  how  could  they   have   been
designated as service connected.  He is in a real Catch 22  situation  since
it is recognized that his records  are  missing  and  his  claim  cannot  be
supported without them.  Applicant provided further details surrounding  the
aforementioned incidents resulting in his injuries and he  provided  details
of his major medical treatments and  hospitalizations.   He  adds  that  his
primary concern in this matter is to have  his  records  accurately  reflect
the true  cause  of  his  injuries  as  either  caused  by  armed  conflict,
hazardous service, and/or instrumentality of war.   His  complete  response,
with attachments, is at Exhibit E.

_________________________________________________________________
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, we find no evidence which would lead us to believe  that
the service-connected medical conditions the applicant believes are  combat-
related were 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.  Therefore, it is  our
determination that the conditions 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 its rationale as the  basis  for
our conclusion that the applicant has not been the victim  of  an  error  or
injustice.  In the absence of documentary evidence to the contrary, we  find
no basis upon  which  to  recommend  granting  the  relief  sought  in  this
application.  If the applicant were to provide such evidence,  we  would  be
willing to reconsider his request.

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-2004-
00011 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 19 Apr 04, w/atchs.
    Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
    Exhibit C.  Letter, AFPC/DPPD, dated 18 Jun 04.
    Exhibit D.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 25 Jun 04.
    Exhibit E.  Letter, Applicant, dated 6 Jul 04, w/atchs.



                                   THOMAS S. MARKIEWICZ
                                   Chair