RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
             AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF:      DOCKET NUMBER:  BC-2005-02564
            INDEX CODE:  108.07
            COUNSEL:  NONE
            HEARING DESIRED:  YES

MANDATORY CASE COMPLETION DATE:  19 Feb 07

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

His  service-connected  medical  conditions,  lumbosacral  strain  and  knee
conditions,  be  assessed  as  combat  related  in  order  to  qualify   for
compensation under the Combat Related Special Compensation (CRSC) Act.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

His conditions are the result of heavy lifting while assigned  to  Al  Kharj
AB Saudi Arabia, during the Gulf War.  His  conditions  are  the  result  of
manually lifting 600 gallon external fuel tanks by the nose  in  an  attempt
to drain excess fuel from the rear of the tank.

In support of his request,  applicant  provided  a  personal  statement  and
documentation  associated  with  his   CRSC   application.    His   complete
submission, with attachments, is at Exhibit A.

_________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

Applicant contracted his initial enlistment in the Regular Air  Force  on  7
Aug 81.  He was progressively promoted to  the  grade  of  master  sergeant,
having assumed that grade effective and with a date of rank  of  1  Dec  99.
He served as an Aircraft Fuel Systems Technician.   He  voluntarily  retired
from the Air Force on 30 Nov 01, having served 20 years, 3  months,  and  24
days on active duty.  Applicant returned to active duty  on  7  Jun  02  and
served for an additional 2 years.

Available Department of Veterans Affairs (DVA) records  reflect  a  combined
compensable rating of 30% for his unfitting conditions.

His CRSC application was disapproved on 17 Mar 05 based upon the  fact  that
his service-connected medical conditions were determined not to  be  combat-
related.

_________________________________________________________________
AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

AFPC/DPPD recommends denial.   DPPD  provides  a  review  of  his  pertinent
service and DVA medical record entries and states their  review  reveals  no
documentation of treatment for the back and knee conditions at the  time  of
the incident described.  However, there are several entries in  his  records
that show follow-on treatment for his back and knee conditions  as  well  as
several recounts of the event claimed as the cause of the  disabilities.   A
majority of the medical evidence seems to indicate the knee conditions  were
caused by the stress  of  running/jogging;  however,  some  of  the  medical
providers suggest the knee conditions are related to his back  injury.   The
Fuels  career  field  functional  manager  was   contacted   regarding   the
procedures for draining fuel tanks. The functional manager  indicated  there
was no procedure in the technical manual for  the  technician  to  "tip  the
tail" of the fuel tanks.  The functional manager  doubts  that  any  of  his
supervisors in the AOR would validate what the applicant is contending.

The issue at hand is whether or not the lifting event is  considered  to  be
combat related.  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 to 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  of  the
individual's particular physical make-up.

The DPPD evaluation is at Exhibit C.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

Applicant states his  conditions  were  incurred  while  performing  wartime
duties and working on  wartime  materials  and  equipment.   DPPD  fails  to
mention that he did seek medical attention the first chance he got  but  the
documentation did not make  it  into  his  medical  records.   The  advisory
mentions a motor vehicle accident he was involved in.  He was in and out  of
therapy for years prior to his motor vehicle accident.  The low impact rear-
end collision was like being punched in  his  lower  back  and  resulted  in
additional physical therapy.  Applicant does not know  if  manually  lifting
fuel tanks is contained in any technical data but a  check  of  any  fighter
unit will reveal wooden blocks are used to elevate the nose 4 to  8  inches.
This is not a safety violation and it saved hours of manual drain time.

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
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  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.

4.  The applicant's case is adequately documented and it has not been  shown
that a personal appearance with or without counsel will  materially  add  to
our understanding of the issues involved.   Therefore,  the  request  for  a
hearing is not favorably considered.

_________________________________________________________________

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-
02564 in Executive Session on 28 Feb 06, under the  provisions  of  AFI  36-
2603:

      Mr. Thomas S. Markiewicz, Chair
      Mr. Richard A. Peterson, Member
      Mr. Alan A. Blomgren, Member

The following documentary evidence was considered:

    Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 8 Aug 05, w/atchs.
    Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
    Exhibit C.  Letter, AFPC/DPPD, dated 25 Oct 05.
    Exhibit D.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 4 Nov 05.
    Exhibit E.  Letter, Applicant, dated 21 Nov 05, w/atch.




                                   THOMAS S. MARKIEWICZ
                                   Chair