Search Decisions

Decision Text

AF | BCMR | CY2006 | BC-2005-00769
Original file (BC-2005-00769.doc) Auto-classification: Denied

RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
             AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS


IN THE MATTER OF:      DOCKET NUMBER:  BC-2005-00769
            INDEX CODE:  110.00
      XXXXXXX    COUNSEL:  NONE

      XXXXXXX    HEARING DESIRED:  NO

MANDATORY CASE COMPLETION DATE:  4 SEPTEMBER 2006

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

His Air Force separation medical examination be changed in order for him  to
qualify for CSRC.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

The examining physician neglected to properly  fill  out  the  9  July  1958
Report of Medical Examination.

In support of his application, applicant provided  a  copy  of  his  medical
records, a letter from the Veterans Administration,  pictures,  and  letters
from SAF/MRBR and Department of the Navy.

Applicant’s complete submission, with attachment, is at Exhibit A.

_________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

The applicant served in the Air Force from 13  July  1954  to       12  July
1958  as  an  aircraft  and  control/warning  operator.  Separation  medical
examination  dated  9  July  1958  documents  mild  near   sightedness   and
occasional episodes of tinea pedis without current signs  of  infection.  He
subsequently served in the Navy  apparently  completing  over  20  years  of
service leading to military retirement. Following separation  from  service,
the Department of Veterans Affairs granted the applicant  service  connected
disability ratings for glaucoma rated 70 percent and dermatphytosis (of  the
feet) rated zero percent.

The  applicant's  application  to  the  Navy  for  Combat  Related   Special
Compensation (CRSC) for glaucoma and dermatophytosis was denied.  Review  by
Navy CRSC program authorities documented by decisional documentes  dated  21
January 2005  in  the  submitted  documentation  concluded  the  applicant's
condition did not qualify for CRSC.

_________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

The BCMR Medical Consultant recommended denial  and  states  the  change  in
medical documentation that  the  applicant  requests  is  not  warranted  by
evidence of the record. Furthermore, even if the  records  were  changed  to
state what he requests, his  conditions  would  not  qualify  for  the  CRSC
program. There is no evidence in the record  that  the  applicant's  service
connected disabilities were incurred as a direct result of  armed  conflict,
while engaged in hazardous service while  in  performance  of  duties  under
conditions simulating war, or as a result  of  an  instrumentality  of  war.
Glaucoma  is  most  commonly  a  spontaneously   developing   condition   in
predisposed individuals. Duties as a radar operator do not  cause  glaucoma.
Duties as a radar operator are  not  considered  hazardous  duty  and  radar
screens  are  not  considered  an  instrumentality  of  war.   Exposure   to
environmental fungi from community  showers  in  a  combat  zone  or  during
military training is not a qualifying circumstance for CRSC.  Based  on  his
DVA rating of 70 percent, the applicant may qualify for  Concurrent  Receipt
of Retired and Disability Pay which should be an  automatic  change  in  his
pay by Defense Accounting and Finance Service.  Action  and  disposition  in
this case are proper and equitable  reflecting  compliance  with  Air  Force
directives that implement the law.

BCMR Medical Consultant evaluation is at Exhibit C.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

The applicant reviewed the Air Force evaluation  and  provided  comments  on
the BCMR advisory opinion.

Applicant's complete response 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 not timely filed; however, it is in  the  interest
of justice to excuse the failure to timely file.

3.    Insufficient relevant evidence has been presented to  demonstrate  the
existence of an  error  or  injustice.   After  reviewing  the  evidence  of
record, we are convinced the applicant’s separation from the Air  Force  was
in accordance with Air  Force  policy.   His  contentions  are  duly  noted;
however, in our opinion, the detailed comments provided by the BCMR  Medical
Consultant adequately address  these  allegations.   Therefore,  we  are  in
agreement with the comments and recommendation  of  the  Medical  Consultant
and adopt his rationale as the basis for our  decision  that  the  applicant
has not been the victim of either an error or injustice.   In  view  of  the
above and in the absence of evidence to the contrary, we find no  compelling
basis upon which to recommend favorable action on this application.

_________________________________________________________________

THE BOARD DETERMINES THAT:

The applicant be notified the evidence presented  did  not  demonstrate  the
existence of an error or injustice; the application  was  denied  without  a
personal appearance; and 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-2005-
00769 in Executive Session on 14 June 2006, under the provisions of AFI  36-
2603:

                 Ms. Charlene M. Bradley, Panel Chair
                 Ms. James A. Wolffe, Member
                 Ms. Jan Mulligan, Member

The following documentary evidence was considered:

   Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 28 Feb 05, w/atch.
   Exhibit B.  Master Personnel Records.
   Exhibit C.  Letter, BCMR Medical Consultant, dated 2 May 06.
   Exhibit D.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 5 May 06.
   Exhibit E.  Applicant’s Response, 31 May 06.





                       CHARELENE M. BRADLEY
                       Panel Chair

Similar Decisions

  • AF | BCMR | CY2006 | BC-2004-03549

    Original file (BC-2004-03549.DOC) Auto-classification: Denied

    On 9 Oct 69, a Physical Evaluation Board (PEB) recommended he be placed on the Temporary Disability Retired List (TDRL) with a combined compensable rating of 70%, with a diagnosis of arteriosclerotic heart disease and gout. Since the 1994 NAS Report, the DVA does not grant presumptive service connection for atherosclerotic heart disease unless it has been medically established that the heart disease was due to non-insulin dependent diabetes mellitus associated with Agent Orange. For...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2004 | BC-2003-02790

    Original file (BC-2003-02790.doc) Auto-classification: Denied

    RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2003-02790 INDEX CODE: 108.07 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: His service-connected medical condition, degenerative arthritis of both hips, hearing loss, and tinnitus, be assessed as combat related in order to qualify for compensation under the Combat Related Special Compensation (CRSC) Act. ...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2005 | BC-2005-00196

    Original file (BC-2005-00196.DOC) Auto-classification: Denied

    RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2005-00196 INDEX CODE: 108.07 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO MANDATORY CASE COMPLETION DATE: 18 Jul 06 _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: His service-connected medical conditions, glaucoma, cataracts, back condition, and Post Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD), be assessed as combat related in order to qualify for compensation...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2007 | BC-2006-01730

    Original file (BC-2006-01730.doc) Auto-classification: Denied

    When evaluating injuries resulting from falls, the Board must look at the cause of the fall to determine if that cause was combat-related. 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 18 Aug 06 (Exhibit D) for review and comment within 30 days. After a thorough review of the available evidence of record, it is our opinion...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2004 | BC-2003-02830

    Original file (BC-2003-02830.doc) Auto-classification: Denied

    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-2004-00046

    Original file (BC-2004-00046.DOC) Auto-classification: Denied

    _________________________________________________________________ AIR FORCE EVALUATION: The BCMR Medical Consultant is of the opinion that while the applicant’s hearing loss qualifies for CRSC, his other conditions do not. 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...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2008 | BC-2007-01374

    Original file (BC-2007-01374.doc) Auto-classification: Denied

    In support of his request, applicant provided documentation associated with his CRSC application. The complete 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 31 August 2007 (Exhibit D) for review and comment within 30 days. After a thorough review of the available evidence of record, it is our opinion that the service-connected...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2009 | BC-2008-03916

    Original file (BC-2008-03916.doc) Auto-classification: Denied

    His DVA award was 50 percent, his CRSC award was 40 percent with Special Monthly Compensation. In this respect, it appears that while the DVA increased his combined service-connected disability rating to 50 percent, the particular disability that has been determined combat-related remains rated at 40 percent. _________________________________________________________________ THE BOARD DETERMINES THAT: The applicant be notified that the evidence presented did not demonstrate the existence of...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2005 | bc-2003-04145

    Original file (bc-2003-04145.DOC) Auto-classification: Denied

    RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2003-04145 INDEX CODE: 108.07 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO MANDATORY CASE COMPLETION DATE: 18 Jun 05 _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: His service-connected medical conditions, hypertension and coronary disease, be assessed as combat-related in order to qualify for compensation under the Combat-Related Special Compensation...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2011 | BC-2011-04341

    Original file (BC-2011-04341.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2011-04341 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: YES ________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: His service connected disability be re-evaluated under the Combat Related Special Compensation (CRSC) program. The applicant has requested that his service medical records be re-evaluated under the CRSC program. ...