RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
             AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF:      DOCKET NUMBER:  BC-2004-00441
            INDEX CODE:  108.07
            COUNSEL:  NONE

            HEARING DESIRED:  Not Indicated

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

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

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

Applicant makes no  contentions.   In  support  of  his  request,  applicant
provided documentation extracted from his medical records and a copy of  his
CRSC denial letter.   His  complete  submission,  with  attachments,  is  at
Exhibit A.

_________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

Applicant contracted his initial enlistment in the Regular Air Force  on  16
Aug 73.  He was progressively promoted  to  the  grade  of  staff  sergeant,
having assumed that grade effective and with a date of rank  of  1  Apr  83.
He served as a Services Supervisor and a Vehicle Operations Dispatcher.   He
voluntary retired from the Air Force on 31 Aug 93, having  served  20  years
and 15 days on active duty.

Current Department of Veterans Affairs  (DVA)  records  reflect  a  combined
compensable rating of 90% for his unfitting conditions.

His CRSC application was disapproved on 29 Jan 04 based upon the  fact  that
his service-connected medical condition was determined  not  to  be  combat-
related.

_________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

AFPC/DPPD recommends denial.  DPPD states his records no  not  reflect  that
he was treated for any type of anxiety of depressive disorders.   He  claims
his PTSD is due to two experiences he encountered, one being  that  he  came
across a security guard who had shot himself and the second was that he  saw
an  Airman  struck  and  killed  by  an   extended   antenna.    There   are
inconsistencies in the reporting of his experiences.  One report states  the
applicant called for emergency intervention in the security  guard  incident
and the other states he did not see the body  but  was  shaken  by  all  the
blood.  The report indicates he had nightmares and  intrusive  thoughts  but
did  not  seek  a  mental  health  evaluation  due  to  fear   of   negative
repercussions and because he was undergoing  a  divorce  and  had  financial
problems.  His civilian physician states  that  making  the  assumption  the
events occurred in the manner in which  the  applicant  claims  then  it  is
assumable that he has developed PTSD.  The preponderance  of  evidence  made
available does not show any record of the incidents  he  claimed.   The  DVA
examination revealed that even though he managed to  complete  two  master's
degrees, he has multiple symptoms including depression, dysthymic  disorder,
and personality disorder and assuming the trauma occurred in the  manner  he
claims,  he  meets  the  criteria  for  PTSD.   Unfortunately  none  of  the
documentation submitted provides  any  specific  information  regarding  the
circumstances  of  the  events.   According  to  his  records,   he   denies
hallucinations, delusions, paranoia, or  suicidal  ideation,  though  he  is
having a difficult time finishing his present schooling,  and  dealing  with
the loss  OF  different  relatives.   His  records  do  not  show  a  combat
related/hazardous service connection for his PTSD.  The DPPD  evaluation  is
at Exhibit C.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

Applicant states he did not see the body of the security guard but  did  see
the body of the other airman wrapped up in a sheet at the  clinic.   He  has
no control over what the psychologists put in his report and  if  they  omit
anything it  is  not  his  fault.   During  his  career  people  were  being
discharged for seeing psychologists and he feared for his  career  and  kept
silent.  He has lost numerous relatives since the 1970's and has  endured  a
painful divorce in which his former spouse's writing of  bad  checks  almost
got him kicked out of the  Air  Force.   His  PTSD  is  the  result  of  two
tragedies he saw in the military that he kept to himself because  he  feared
if  he  spoke  he  would  be  discharged.   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, it is our opinion  that  the  service-connected  medical
condition the applicant believes is combat-related was 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, does  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-
00441 in Executive Session on 6 Apr 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 6 Feb 04, w/atchs.
    Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
    Exhibit C.  Letter, AFPC/DPPD, dated 26 Apr 04.
    Exhibit D.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 7 May 04.
    Exhibit E.  Letter, Applicant, dated 11 May 04, w/atchs.




                                   THOMAS S. MARKIEWICZ
                                   Chair