RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS
IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2004-01622
INDEX CODE: 108.07
COUNSEL: VFW
HEARING DESIRED: NO
MANDATORY CASE COMPLETION DATE: 23 Nov 05
_________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:
His service-connected medical condition, macular degeneration, be assessed
as combat related in order to qualify for compensation under the Combat
Related Special Compensation (CRSC) Act.
_________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:
His macular degeneration is applicable to both combat and non-combat flying
due to exposure to ultra violent rays of the sun during all day missions.
The use of inertial and satellite navigation systems did not exist in the
time he was piloting aircraft. He was often required to fly on test
flights to take multiple sun bearings to compare with compass headings.
During the majority of his missions he was vulnerable to ultra violet rays
from the sun and more so when making sun observations. His eye exams while
in the Air Force were limited to wall charts.
In support of his request, applicant provided documentation associated with
his CRSC application, a personal statement, an Afterburner excerpt, and
documentation associated with his request for Congressional inquiry. His
complete submission, with attachments, is at Exhibit A.
_________________________________________________________________
STATEMENT OF FACTS:
Applicant was commissioned in the Air Force on 10 Jun 44. He was
progressively promoted to the grade of lieutenant colonel, having assumed
that grade effective and with a date of rank of 14 Mar 62. On 31 Jul 69,
he voluntarily retired for years of service. He served 26 years, 6 months,
and 1 day on active duty.
Available Department of Veterans Affairs (DVA) records reflect a combined
compensable rating of 70% for his unfitting conditions.
His CRSC application was disapproved on 18 Nov 04 based upon the fact that
his service-connected medical conditions were determined not to be combat-
related. His shoulder prosthesis was subsequently approved for CRSC
compensation, rated at 50%.
_________________________________________________________________
AIR FORCE EVALUATION:
AFPC/DPPD recommends denial. DPPD states a review of his service and DVA
medical records show his impaired vision is not combat related.
Determination for CRSC eligibility can only be made on the basis of
objective documentary information in the records as distinguished from
personal opinions or accounts. His records do not show, while in service,
a combat-related event or events that were the direct cause of his
disability.
The DPPD evaluation is at Exhibit C.
_________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:
Applicant states the macular degeneration of his eyes was determined by
several eye doctors and was confirmed by a DVA eye doctor as due to years
of altitude flying and exposure to various rays. He has never smoked nor
is his disability hereditary. None of his siblings has had macular
degeneration. 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-
01622 in Executive Session on 1 Jun 05, under the provisions of AFI 36-
2603:
Mr. Thomas S. Markiewicz, Chair
Mr. Christopher Carey, Member
Mr. James W. Russell III, Member
The following documentary evidence was considered:
Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 10 May 04, w/atchs.
Exhibit B. Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
Exhibit C. Letter, AFPC/DPPD, dated 28 Jun 04.
Exhibit D. Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 9 Jul 04.
Exhibit E. Letter, VFW, dated 20 Jul 04, w/atchs.
THOMAS S. MARKIEWICZ
Chair
AF | BCMR | CY2005 | BC-2004-01622A
_________________________________________________________________ STATEMENT OF FACTS: On 8 Jun 05, the Board considered and denied a similar request submitted by the applicant. After again reviewing the evidence of record and the additional evidence provided by the applicant, it remains our opinion that the service-connected medical condition the applicant believes is combat-related does not meet the strict requirements to qualify for compensation under the CRSC Act. ...
AF | BCMR | CY2005 | BC-2004-01883
DPPD states a review of his service and DVA medical records show his service connected conditions 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 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,...
AF | BCMR | CY2005 | BC-2004-00767
In support of his request, applicant provided a personal statement, his CRSC denial letter, and documents extracted from his medical and flight records. The DPPD evaluation is at Exhibit C. _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: Applicant states the definite causal relationship can be found in the fact that his injury would not have occurred if he was not a crewmember, performing official duties, during ongoing combat...
AF | BCMR | CY2005 | BC-2004-03816
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2004-03816 INDEX CODE: 108.07 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO MANDATORY CASE COMPLETION DATE: 17 Jun 06 _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: His service-connected medical conditions, postoperative stomach injury, damaged eyesight, and impaired hearing, be assessed as combat related in order to qualify for compensation under the...
AF | BCMR | CY2004 | BC-2003-02090
There is no evidence he had active tuberculosis and no evidence of lung damage from tuberculosis. 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 | CY2005 | BC-2004-01652
This is in error because he has been receiving compensation since 1979. _________________________________________________________________ AIR FORCE EVALUATION: AFPC/DPPD recommends denial. 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 Aug 04 for review and comment within 30 days.
AF | BCMR | CY2005 | BC-2004-01420
He argues that the 100% disability rating assigned by the Army Retirement Board at the time of his retirement from the Army in 1945 should be equated to a 20- year length of service retirement and qualifies him for consideration in the program. The fact that he was disability retired with a 100% rating does not qualify him for compensation under the CRSC program. The applicant does not qualify for compensation under the CRSC program because he did not serve 20 years on active duty, he has...
AF | BCMR | CY2005 | BC-2004-01933
DPPD states a review of his service and DVA medical records show his duodenal ulcer, back injury, quadruple heart bypass, and tinnitus are not combat related. For duodenal ulcer to qualify for CRSC, it must be presumptive to POW internment and so stated in the applicable rating decision. 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...
AF | BCMR | CY2005 | BC-2004-00970
In support of his request, applicant provided a personal statement, documentation extracted from his medical records and documentation associated with his CRSC application. DPPD states a review of his service and DVA records does not show that his conditions are combat related. _________________________________________________________________ THE BOARD DETERMINES THAT: The applicant be notified that the evidence presented did not demonstrate the existence of material error or injustice;...
AF | BCMR | CY2004 | BC-2003-03641
Having reviewed his medical and personnel records, and documents supporting the aircraft accident it appears that his injuries are not considered to be eligible for CRSC. In support of his submission, applicant provided a personal statement, documents extracted from his medical records, and a document associated with his CRSC application. The applicant requests changes be made to his 12 Jan 61 Aircraft Accident Report.