RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
             AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF:      DOCKET NUMBER:  BC-2005-01611
            INDEX CODE:  108.07
            COUNSEL:  NONE
            HEARING DESIRED:  NO

MANDATORY CASE COMPLETION DATE:  17 Nov 06

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

1.  Her AF Form 356, Findings and Recommended Disposition of  USAF  Physical
Evaluation Board, dated 1 Oct 04, be changed in  item  10d,  Disability  was
the Direct Result of a Combat Related Injury, to reflect "Yes."

2.  Her service-connected medical condition, spondylolisthesis of  segmental
instability,  be  assessed  as  combat  related  in  order  to  qualify  for
compensation under the Combat Related Special Compensation (CRSC) Act.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

Her back was injured during a chemical wartime exercise in 1997.

In support of her request, applicant provided documentation associated  with
her disability  evaluation  system  processing  and  a  statement  from  her
physician.

Her complete submission, with attachments, is at Exhibit A.

_________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

Applicant contracted her initial enlistment in the Regular Air  Force  on  2
Feb 81.  She was  progressively  promoted  to  the  grade  of  chief  master
sergeant, having assumed that grade effective and with a date of rank  of  1
Mar 00.  She served primarily as a Supply Manager.  On 30 Nov  04,  she  was
retired from  the  Air  Force  by  reason  of  physical  disability  with  a
diagnosis of intervertebral disc syndrome, rated  at  60%.   She  served  23
years, 9 months, and 28 days on active duty.

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

Her CRSC application was disapproved on 23 Mar 05 and again  on  13 May  05,
based upon  the  fact  that  the  service-connected  medical  condition  was
determined not to be combat-related.

_________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

AFPC/DPPD recommends denial.  DPPD states DODI 1332.38, Physical  Disability
Evaluation, outlines the criteria for determining disabilities as  resulting
from armed conflict, an instrumentality of war, or having been  incurred  in
the line of duty during a period of war.

Armed conflict is defined as "a war, expedition, occupation or  an  area  or
territory,  battle,  skirmish,  raid,  invasion,  rebellion,   insurrection,
guerilla action, riot, or any other action  in  which  Service  members  are
engaged  with  a  hostile  or  belligerent  nation,   faction,   force,   or
terrorists.  Armed conflict may also include such  situations  as  incidents
involving a member while interned as a prisoner of  war  or  while  detained
against his or her will in custody of a  hostile  or  belligerent  force  or
while escaping or attempting to escape from such  confinement,  prisoner  of
war, or detained status."  Instrumentality of war is defined as "a  vehicle,
vessel, or device designed primarily for military Service and  intended  for
use in such Service at the time of the occurrence of  the  injury.   It  may
also be a vehicle, vessel, or device not  designed  primarily  for  military
service if use of or occurrence involving such a vehicle, vessel, or  device
subjects the individual to a hazard peculiar to military service.  This  use
or  occurrence  differs  from  the   use   or   occurrence   under   similar
circumstances  in  civilian  pursuits.   There  must  be  a  direct   causal
relationship  between  the  use  of  the  instrumentality  of  war  and  the
disability, and the disability must be incurred  incident  to  a  hazard  or
risk of the service."

Injuries sustained during a mobility exercise do not meet the  criteria  for
armed conflict or instrumentality of war as outlined  above.   Additionally,
her disability was not incurred during a period of war; therefore, there  is
no justification to change the AF Form 356.

Regarding  her  CRSC  application,  DPPD  states  applicant   believes   her
disability was the result of lifting wet sandbags  during  an  exercise.   A
review of her service medical records shows numerous  entries  of  treatment
for back pain beginning in 1981 which are reported  to  have  occurred  from
lifting boxes of logs,  leaning  over  a  microfiche,  lifting  a  mattress,
cracked back, digging ditches, pinched nerve in back,  etc.   In  2001,  she
reported for low back pain due to lifting which was reinjured  in  1997  and
1998 due to filling sandbags.   Subsequent  injuries  show  back  pain  from
lifting a chair, cyst removal, and heavy lifting.  She reported to  the  PEB
she hurt her back badly in 1997 lifting sandbags and further hurt  her  back
several months later during a squadron circuit training exercise.

Based on their review  of  the  applicant's  service  medical  records,  she
experienced  several  lifting  injuries  during  her  career  and   received
significant treatment for low back pain  long  before  the  injury  incurred
during the chemical warfare  exercise.   Although  military  duties  can  be
strenuous, injuries from routine activities, such as lifting equipment,  are
not sufficient to be considered combat related, even when the  event  occurs
while performing military duties or  training.   Lifting  injuries  are  not
unique to military  service  or  combat  situations.   To  be  eligible  for
compensation, clear documentation must be provided  to  indicate  an  injury
occurred and was caused by a combat related factor rather than from  routine
causes  or  the  individual's  particular  physical   make-up.    The   DPPD
evaluations are at Exhibits C and D.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

Copies of the Air Force evaluations were forwarded to  the  applicant  on  5
Aug 05 for review and comment within 30 days.  As of this date, this  office
has received no response.

_________________________________________________________________

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 evidence presented that correction to  her  LOD
is justified.   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 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-2005-
01611 in Executive Session on 6 Feb 06, under  the  provisions  of  AFI  36-
2603:

      Mr. Thomas S. Markiewicz, Chair
      Mr. Michael V. Barbino, Member
      Mr. James W. Russell III, Member

The following documentary evidence was considered:

    Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 10 May 05, w/atchs.
    Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
    Exhibit C.  Letter, AFPC/DPPD, dated 2 Jun 05.
    Exhibit D.  Letter, AFPC/DPPD, dated 28 Jul 05.
    Exhibit E.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 5 Aug 05.




                                   THOMAS S. MARKIEWICZ
                                   Chair