RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS
IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2004-00213
INDEX CODE: 108.07
COUNSEL: NONE
HEARING DESIRED: NO
_________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:
His service-connected medical conditions, loss of use of little finger,
traumatic arthritis, cirrhosis of liver, be assessed as combat related in
order to qualify for compensation under the Combat Related Special
Compensation (CRSC) Act.
_________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:
His combined disability rating is 100%. All the requirements for CRSC are
not combat-related as indicated by DPPD.
His complete submission is at Exhibit A.
_________________________________________________________________
STATEMENT OF FACTS:
After serving in the Army and the Air Force Reserves, the applicant
contracted his initial enlistment in the Regular Air Force on 8 Mar 49. He
was progressively promoted to the grade of senior master sergeant, having
assumed that grade effective and with a date of rank of 1 Oct 67. He
voluntary retired from the Air Force on 31 Dec 69, having served 21 years,
6 months and 18 days on active duty.
His CRSC application was disapproved on 16 Dec 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 back pain was generally due
to muscle spasms but no trauma or surgical procedures were involved. There
is no record of any particular back injury that he encountered to consider
as combat-related, just repetitive trauma from being a Jet Engine
Technician. End stage liver disease developed after he received a unit of
blood during his discectomy surgery in 1982, which required an orthotropic
liver transplant. In December 1956, he sustained a blast injury to the
right hand from an explosion, which resulted in an amputation of the little
finger of the right hand. The accident occurred when pressure from a Joy
High Pressure Compressor was incorrectly regulated and the air-oil
separator regulator exploded in his hand. This mishap is not considered
combat-related. There is no documentation that his other disabilities of
back condition and cirrhosis of the liver are the direct result of armed
conflict, hazardous service, or instrumentality of war. The fact that a
member may have incurred a medical condition during a period of war, or
while participating in combat/training exercises is not sufficient to
support a combat-related determination. Records must show a definite
causal relationship between the armed conflict and the medical conditions.
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 30 Apr
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 opinion and recommendation of the
Air Force office 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 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-
00213 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 1 Apr 04, w/atchs.
Exhibit B. Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
Exhibit C. Letter, AFPC/DPPD, dated 9 Apr 04.
Exhibit D. Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 30 Apr 04.
THOMAS S. MARKIEWICZ
Chair
AF | BCMR | CY2008 | BC-2008-00757
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2008-00757 INDEX CODE: 108.07 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO ______________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: His service-connected medical condition, impaired hearing be reevaluated as combat-related in order to qualify for compensation under the Combat Related Special Compensation (CRSC) Act. In support of his request, he provided...
AF | BCMR | CY2005 | BC-2003-04056
A 30 Mar 67, Physical Evaluation Board (PEB) hearing found that he was fit for duty at that time. 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...
AF | BCMR | CY2004 | BC-2003-03642
The Medical Consultant Evaluation is at Exhibit E. ODUSD(MPP)/Comp reviewed the applicant's request and concurs with the findings and recommendation of the BCMR Medical Consultant. _________________________________________________________________ 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...
AF | BCMR | CY2005 | BC-2003-03843
_________________________________________________________________ ADDITIONAL AIR FORCE EVALUATION: The BCMR Medical Consultant recommends denial. The Medical Consultant states a review of his service medical records and personnel records finds no documentation or references to the incident he states caused his heart disease. The Medical Consultant evaluation is at Exhibit E. _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF ADDITIONAL AIR FORCE...
AF | BCMR | CY2004 | BC-2003-02341
The Medical Consultant states a review of his service medical records finds no evidence of trauma, injuries, or exposures related to combat, during exercises or training simulating combat, or attributed to an instrumentality of war. 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,...
AF | BCMR | CY2005 | BC-2004-02060
_________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: His injuries were incurred when he fell off a ladder entering a B-29 aircraft. DPPD states a review of his service and DVA medical records show his degenerative arthritis and limited motion of arm are not combat related. 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...
AF | BCMR | CY2005 | BC-2004-00048
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2004-00048 INDEX CODE: 108.07 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: His service-connected medical conditions, degenerative arthritis, limited motion in cervical spine, left and right knee condition, condition of skeletal system, and bilateral pes planus, be assessed as combat related in order to...
AF | BCMR | CY2004 | BC-2003-04065
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2003-04065 INDEX CODE: 108.07 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NOT INDICATED _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: His service-connected medical conditions, spinal disc condition, hemorrhoids, and high blood pressure, be assessed as combat related in order to qualify for compensation under the Combat Related Special Compensation...
AF | BCMR | CY2004 | BC-2003-02830
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2003-02830 INDEX CODE: 108.07 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: YES _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: All of his service-connected medical conditions be assessed as combat related in order to qualify for compensation under the Combat Related Special Compensation (CRSC) Act. There are no service medical record entries for injuries...
AF | BCMR | CY2005 | BC-2004-01876
Flying fighter aircraft is hazardous service and his duties towing target drones were conducted under simulated combat conditions. DPPD states a review of his service and DVA medical records show his hypertension is not combat related. We agree with the opinion and recommendation of the Air Force office 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.