RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
             AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF:      DOCKET NUMBER:  BC-2004-02768
            INDEX CODE:  108.07
            COUNSEL:  NONE
            HEARING DESIRED:  NO

MANDATORY CASE COMPLETION DATE:  12 Mar 06

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

His service-connected medical condition, flat foot  condition  (both  feet),
be assessed as combat related in order to  qualify  for  compensation  under
the Combat Related Special Compensation (CRSC) Act.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

His condition is the result of many years of hazardous parachute  duties  in
both the Army and Air Force Special Operations Forces as  light  infantryman
on extreme training operations and exercises; and, from over  100  parachute
jumps, many of which are described as "multiple hard landings."

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

_________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

Applicant enlisted in the Army on 19 Jun 64 serving in  infantry  operations
and intelligence.  He was commissioned on 27 Mar 67 and separated  from  the
Army in April 1972.  He served as an assault helicopter pilot.   He  entered
active duty in the Air Force on 21 Apr 80 and served as a helicopter  pilot,
command and control operations and intelligence.  He retired  from  the  Air
Force on 31 Jan 95, having served 22  years,  10  months,  and  13  days  on
active duty.

His CRSC application was approved for back strain,  rated  at  20%;  limited
motion of right shoulder, rated at 10%;  impaired  hearing,  rated  at  10%,
left shoulder condition, rated at 10%; spinal disc condition, rated at  10%,
and tinnitus, rated at 10%.  His flat foot condition was  disapproved  based
insufficient documentation.

_________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

AFPC/DPPD recommends denial.  DPPD states a review of his  service  and  DVA
medical records show his flat foot condition is  not  combat  related.   His
records do not show, while in service,  a  combat-related  event  or  events
that were the direct cause of his disabilities.

The DPPD evaluation is at Exhibit C.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

During much of his career he was engaged in hazardous service as defined  by
Section III of the DD Form 2860, CRSC Application.  He has been  advised  by
DPPD that his flat foot condition does not  qualify  for  CRSC  because  his
feet simply  wore  down  over  time  from  such  duty,  not  in  a  one-time
catastrophe that would have garnered a single medical report  convenient  to
CRSC forms and a section of law.  His military duties led to  the  point  in
his life where today he required Orthotics and is receiving  disability  for
both feet.  His complete response is at Exhibit E.

_________________________________________________________________

ADDITIONAL AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

The BCMR Medical  Consultant  recommends  denial.   The  Medical  Consultant
states there is no evidence in the record his  of  pes  planus  with  hallux
valgus, status post surgical correction is due  to  parachute  duty.   There
are no records of treatment for  injuries  to  either  foot  incurred  as  a
result of parachute jumps and service medical records make no  reference  to
any such injury.   Hallux  valgus  with  bunions  is  characterized  by  the
lateral deviation of the great toe and is found almost exclusively  in  show
wearing societies.  Shoes are considered a major factor  but  other  factors
such  as  genetics,  the  presence  of  flat  feet,  a  pronating  foot  and
repetitive sports activities involving running  or  jogging  play  a  strong
role.  Parachute jumping has not been associated  with  the  development  of
hallux valgus and bunions.  Also, in the absence of a traumatic jump  injury
resulting in a fracture of the foot or disruption of ligaments and  tendons,
parachute jumping does not cause  pes  planus,  an  otherwise  developmental
condition.

The Medical Consultant Evaluation is at Exhibit F.

_________________________________________________________________


APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF ADDITIONAL AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

Applicant  responded  that  most  of  the  Medical  Consultant's  evaluation
ignores the specific operational facts submitted  with  his  original  claim
and suggests his disability may stem from anything ranging from genetics  to
shoes to sports activities.  Airborne, Ranger, Special Forces,  and  Special
Tactics  training  involves  a  lot  of  "sports  activities",  often   with
backpacks and around-the-clock  endurance  marches  in  rough  terrain.   He
entered the Army with two perfectly good feet; a fact  certainly  no  longer
true after years of voluntary hazardous service eventually  wore  them  down
to the state of needing corrective  surgery  and  Orthotics.   Common  sense
does not leave much doubt as to the linkage between his years  of  hazardous
service and the resultant disability.

His complete response is at Exhibit H.

_________________________________________________________________

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 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-2004-
02768 in Executive Session on 12 Oct 05, under the  provisions  of  AFI  36-
2603:

      Mr. Thomas S. Markiewicz, Chair
      Mr. James W. Russell III, Member
      Mr. Christopher D. Carey, Member

The following documentary evidence was considered:

    Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 1 Sep 04, w/atchs.
    Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
    Exhibit C.  Letter, AFPC/DPPD, dated 21 Dec 04.
    Exhibit D.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 29 Dec 04.
    Exhibit E.  Letter, Applicant, dated 11 Jan 05, w/atchs.
    Exhibit F.  Letter, BCMR Medical Consultant, dated 19 Jul 05.
    Exhibit G.  Letter, SAF/MRBC, dated 25 Jul 05.
    Exhibit H.  Letter, Applicant, dated 1 Aug 05.
    Exhibit I.  Letter, Applicant, dated 28 Jun 05.
    Exhibit J.  Letter, SAF/MRBC, dated 11 Jul 05.




                                   THOMAS S. MARKIEWICZ
                                   Chair