RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
             AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF:      DOCKET NUMBER:  BC-2004-02998
            INDEX CODE:  108.07
            COUNSEL:  NONE
            HEARING DESIRED:  Not Indicated

MANDATORY CASE COMPLETION DATE:  26 Mar 06

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

1.  Corrections be made to his AF Form  348,  Line  of  Duty  Determination,
dated 28 Oct 77.

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

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

The AF Form 348 does not reflect the actual cause of  the  herniated  lumbar
disc.  No medical opinion was sought as to the cause of his herniated  disc.
 He was simply asked if he could recall doing anything that caused his  back
pain and he  replied  he  suffered  from  a  sore  back  after  changing  an
automobile tire.   His  physician  told  him  that  it  would  be  virtually
impossible that the changing of an automobile tire  could  have  caused  his
back injury in 1976.  He concluded without reservation his  injury  resulted
from performance of his duties as  an  F-105G  aircrew.   Another  physician
rendered his professional medical opinion that his back  injury  was  caused
by high "G" forces during combat.

In  support  of  his  request,  applicant  provided  a  personal  statement,
documentation associated with his LOD determination,  physician  statements,
and documentation extracted from his personnel  and  medical  records.   His
complete submission, with attachments, is at Exhibit A.

_________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

Applicant served as an enlisted member from 17 Oct  57  through  30 Mar  66.
He was appointed a second lieutenant, Reserve of the Air  Force  on  31  Mar
66.  He was progressively promoted to the grade  of  major,  having  assumed
that grade effective and with a date of rank of 13 Mar 77.  On  30  Sep  79,
he voluntarily retired for  years  of  service.   He  served  21  years,  11
months, and 14 days on active duty

Available Department of Veterans Affairs (DVA) records  reflect  a  combined
compensable rating of 60% for his unfitting conditions.

His CRSC application was disapproved on 19 Sep 03 and his appeal was  denied
on 19 Aug  04  based  upon  the  fact  that  his  service-connected  medical
condition was determined not to be combat-related.

_________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

AFPC/DPPDC recommends denial.  DPPDC states while  on  active  duty  he  did
receive medical treatment for his condition following an incident  where  he
strained his back changing a car tire.  He provided  medical  opinions  from
two doctors who indicate his aircrew duties were the probable cause  of  his
back condition.  The  most  recent  statement  indicated  "his  years  in  a
fighter contributed significantly to his need for  ultimate  lumbar  surgery
and that the changing of the tire may have been the  straw  that  broke  the
camel's back."  CRSC medical guidance states that although exposure to  high
G-forces while flying may produce  premature  onset  of  degenerative  spine
disease, studies do not indicate this exposure is  the  direct  cause  since
this age-related process would develop regardless of high  G-force  flights.
In the absence of a specific event resulting in significant  injury,  it  is
impossible to  attribute  this  condition  directly  to  aerial  flight  and
exposure to high G-forces.  A direct and  causal  relationship  between  the
disability  and  aircrew  duties  is  necessary  to  warrant   approval   of
compensation.  He is requesting the LOD determination  be  changed  to  show
his aircrew duties were the cause of his  spinal  disc  condition.   If  his
intention is to make his condition appear  more  combat-related  to  qualify
for CRSC, this change alone will not be sufficient to  warrant  approval  of
compensation.

The DPPDC evaluation is at Exhibit C.

AFPC/JA recommends denial.  JA states LODs are done at the time  of  injury,
illness, or death so that the pertinent information is available and  fresh.
 The injury was listed as reported by the  applicant  to  his  doctor.   The
doctor at the time did not indicate the injury could not have  happened  the
way he reported it.   There  is  no  evidence  of  error.   The  applicant's
request is supported by doctors who, 27 year after the fact,  state  aircrew
duties were one probable contributor to a  degenerative  disease.   None  of
the opinions state that a combat flight caused his injury.   Thus,  even  if
the opinions of the doctors 27  years  later  were  to  substitute  for  the
findings of the doctors who clearly identified the cause of  the  injury  at
the time and place it occurred, the LOD still could not be changed  the  way
the applicant requests.  The applicant is in essence, asking  the  Board  to
fabricate a new fact scenario and insert it in his record  for  the  purpose
of receiving combat pay to which he is not entitled.

JA noted an administrative error in the 1977  LOD.  The  commander  did  not
check the finding in block 21, although he clearly agreed with  the  medical
officer's finding that the finding should  be  in  the  line  of  duty.   He
signed block 20 instead.  The error has been corrected.

The JA evaluation is at Exhibit D.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

Applicant responded that an innocent and seemingly innocuous error was  made
in finding that his back injury resulted from the changing of a tire.   This
determination  was  made  by  a  doctor  who  was  not  an   orthopedic   or
neuroscience specialist.   He  was  stationed  at  McClellan  AFB  while  he
received medical treatment at Travis AFB. As noted in the  medical  opinions
provided by the high qualified medical experts, it is not probable that  his
back injury was not caused by changing a tire, but  it  is  highly  probable
his back injury was a direct result of flying duties.  Applicant states  his
CRSC application is irrelevant to this request.  What actually  occurred  at
the time of the incident is that several weeks after changing the  tire  and
after having been treated for a suspected back muscle problem, he  began  to
develop pain and weakness in his left leg.  It was  at  that  point  he  was
asked if he recalled any  event  that  might  have  caused  this  pain.   He
replied he had felt some soreness after having changed a car tire  but  that
the soreness disappeared after a day or so.  His back  injury  became  known
at an early age  and  shortly  after  having  been  exposed  to  severe  and
frequent high G-forces.

His complete response is at Exhibit F.

_________________________________________________________________

ADDITIONAL AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

The BCMR Medical  Consultant  recommends  denial.   The  Medical  Consultant
provided a synopsis of the applicant's career and pertinent medical  history
in which he states claims for spinal or musculoskeletal conditions based  on
wear and tear in the performance of normal duties as aircrew  during  flight
does not meet the standard for direct causality  required  by  CRSC  policy.
He has degenerative joint and  disc  disease  of  the  lumbar  and  cervical
spines that is indistinguishable from that  occurring  in  the  non-aviating
general population.  There is  no  evidence  of  traumatic  injury  and  his
herniated lumbar disc was not proximately  associated  with  high-G  flight.
Even the pattern of cervical spine disease  noted  in  1995  is  typical  of
spontaneous disease seen in the general population  without  involvement  of
higher cervical levels described  in  pilots  of  high  performance  fighter
aircraft in the literature cited by  one  of  his  medical  experts.   While
aerial  flight  may  have  added  to  his  predisposition  for  later   disc
herniation, it was not the direct, proximate cause and does not qualify  for
CRSC.

The Medical Consultant evaluation is at Exhibit G.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF ADDITIONAL AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

Applicant states three very qualified doctors  have  offered  their  opinion
that the back problem could not have been caused by the changing of  a  tire
as is indicated in his LOD determination.  There is  no  indication  in  the
Medical Consultant's memo that he disagrees with this conclusion.  There  is
disagreement  of  what  actually  caused  his  initial  back  injury.    The
physician who performed his surgery  and  two  physicians  who  treated  him
after his surgery opined that his injury is the  result  of  his  Air  Force
flying duties prior to the  surgery.   The  Medical  Consultant  states  his
injury has a strong hereditary predisposition; however,  his  father  worked
until age 82 without any back problems, his 71 year old brother  who  worked
as a mechanic most of his life has never had back problems, and his 45  year
old son who is extremely active has never had back problems.  The  applicant
notes the Medical Consultant has devoted a substantial portion of  his  memo
to the subject of CRSC and reiterates this application is not a request  for
CRSC reconsideration.

His complete response is at Exhibit I.

_________________________________________________________________

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  evidence
of record, we see no evidence of error or impropriety  in  the  LOD  process
and are not persuaded by the applicant's contentions, that he has  been  the
victim of an injustice.  It appears  that  the  causal  circumstances  which
prompted the LOD investigation were appropriately identified at the time  of
the  incident.   We  agree  with  the   Air   Force   offices   of   primary
responsibility that  the  after-the-fact  opinions  of  his  physicians  are
insufficiently persuasive.  Further, 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-
02998 in Executive Session on 4 Jan 06, under  the  provisions  of  AFI  36-
2603:

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

The following documentary evidence was considered:

    Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 16 Sep 04, w/atchs.
    Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
    Exhibit C.  Letter, AFPC/DPPD, dated 27 Jan 05.
    Exhibit D.  Letter, AFPC/JA, dated 10 Feb 05.
    Exhibit E.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 18 Feb 05.
    Exhibit F.  Letter, Applicant, dated 5 Mar 05
    Exhibit G.  Letter, BCMR Medical Consultant, dated 7 Sep 05.
    Exhibit H.  Letter, SAF/MRBC, dated 8 Sep 05.
    Exhibit I.  Letter, Applicant, dated 21 Sep 05.




                                   THOMAS S. MARKIEWICZ
                                   Chair