Search Decisions

Decision Text

AF | BCMR | CY2006 | BC-2005-03178
Original file (BC-2005-03178.DOC) Auto-classification: Denied

RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
             AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF:      DOCKET NUMBER:  BC-2005-03178
            INDEX CODE:  108.07
            COUNSEL:  NONE
            HEARING DESIRED:  NO

MANDATORY CASE COMPLETION DATE:  21 Apr 07

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

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

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

Her injury was incurred  when  she  fell  off  a  truck  used  to  transport
patients.  The truck is an instrumentality of war.  The  truck  stopped  for
loading, then possibly moved again as she was in  the  process  of  climbing
from the tire into the bed.  Another person was already in the  bed  of  the
truck.  Her hands suddenly jerked loose from her grip and she  fell  to  the
pavement.

In support of her request, applicant provided documentation associated  with
her CRSC application.  Her complete  submission,  with  attachments,  is  at
Exhibit A.

_________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

Applicant served in the Air Force  Reserve  as  a  Clinical  Nurse  and  was
progressively promoted to the grade of lieutenant  colonel.   Her  name  was
placed on the Air Force Retired List, Retired Reserve Section on 12 Jul  04.
 She served 32 years, 1 month, and  27  days  with  24  of  those  years  as
satisfactory service.

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

Her CRSC application was disapproved on 10 Feb 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 while medical  documentation  does
confirm she fell from a military vehicle  no  evidence  can  be  found  that
indicates there was a malfunction of the vehicle that caused the  injury  or
that something combat related occurred which caused  a  sudden  movement  of
the truck (such as the driver starting to drive away to avoid  being  struck
during a rocket attack).  The Emergency Room Nursing note, dated 16 Dec  94,
indicates she told the medical provider  that  she  fell  off  a  stationary
truck.  When considering the injury  claimed  by  an  applicant,  the  board
believes the most  reliable  and  accurate  evidence  is  the  documentation
prepared at the time of the incident.  Accounts prepared many  years  after-
the-fact are not considered as reliable as those prepared  at  the  time  of
the  event  since  memories  may  be  clouded  by  time   and   perspective.
Therefore, based on the evidence,  it  appears  her  wrist  injury  was  the
result of a fall from a stationary military vehicle.

The DPPD evaluation is at Exhibit C.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

Applicant responded that after the incident an  individual  was  verbalizing
anger about the accident.  She spoke up and said  that  the  truck  had  not
moved while she was climbing  into  it.   At  that  time  she  thought  that
statement was true.  She had not felt any movement  under  her  feet.   Over
the years she has wondered about the incident and  now  concludes  that  the
truck must have moved while she was  in  the  process  of  climbing  in  it.
While it is probably true that original statements are most accurate,  there
may be exceptions.  The state of mind and true reasoning ability of  someone
who has just suffered a severe injury may not be as reliable as that of  the
same person when not in pain and near shock.

Her complete response is at Exhibit D.

_________________________________________________________________

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 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.

_________________________________________________________________

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-
03178 in Executive Session on 28 Apr 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 3 Feb 06.
    Exhibit D.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 10 Feb 06.
    Exhibit E.  Letter, Applicant, dated 8 Mar 06.




                                   THOMAS S. MARKIEWICZ
                                   Chair

Similar Decisions

  • AF | BCMR | CY2007 | BC-2007-00904

    Original file (BC-2007-00904.doc) Auto-classification: Denied

    In support of his request, applicant provided documentation associated with his CRSC application. The vehicle was being used to transport personnel and baggage at the time; it was not being used for its intended military purpose as a weapons carrier. In addition, the available evidence of record does not support a finding that the service-connected medical condition the applicant believes is combat-related was incurred as the direct result of armed conflict, while engaged in hazardous...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2005 | BC-2005-00235

    Original file (BC-2005-00235.DOC) Auto-classification: Denied

    DPPD states a review of his service and DVA medical records show conflicting information regarding the incident. Other evidence is vague until his DVA compensation exam dated 7 Oct 02, which mentions the injury resulted from a fall off a truck in 1952 in Korea. _________________________________________________________________ THE BOARD DETERMINES THAT: The applicant be notified that the evidence presented did not demonstrate the existence of material error or injustice; that the...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2005 | BC-2004-02060

    Original file (BC-2004-02060.DOC) Auto-classification: Denied

    _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: His injuries were incurred when he fell off a ladder entering a B-29 aircraft. DPPD states a review of his service and DVA medical records show his degenerative arthritis and limited motion of arm are not combat related. 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...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2004 | BC-2003-03642

    Original file (BC-2003-03642.DOC) Auto-classification: Denied

    The Medical Consultant Evaluation is at Exhibit E. ODUSD(MPP)/Comp reviewed the applicant's request and concurs with the findings and recommendation of the BCMR Medical Consultant. _________________________________________________________________ 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...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2006 | BC-2006-00488

    Original file (BC-2006-00488.DOC) Auto-classification: Denied

    He wants his Air Force and DVA records to reflect the change and CRSC compensation. 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 Jun 06 (Exhibit D) for review and comment within 30 days. We agree with the opinion and recommendation of the Air Force office of primary responsibility and adopt its rationale as the basis...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2006 | BC-2005-01611

    Original file (BC-2005-01611.DOC) Auto-classification: Denied

    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." 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. Further, it is our opinion that the service-connected medical condition the applicant believes is...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2006 | BC-2005-01699

    Original file (BC-2005-01699.DOC) Auto-classification: Denied

    RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2005-01699 INDEX CODE: 108.07 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO MANDATORY CASE COMPLETION DATE: 27 Nov 06 _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: His service-connected medical condition, limited motion of the lumbar spine, be assessed as combat related in order to qualify for compensation under the Combat Related Special Compensation...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2005 | BC-2003-04055

    Original file (BC-2003-04055.DOC) Auto-classification: Denied

    His left knee condition is not considered service connected by the DVA. 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. _________________________________________________________________ THE BOARD DETERMINES THAT: The applicant be notified that the evidence presented did not demonstrate the existence of material...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2005 | BC-2004-02604

    Original file (BC-2004-02604.DOC) Auto-classification: Denied

    RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2004-02604 INDEX CODE: 108.07 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: YES MANDATORY CASE COMPLETION DATE: 24 Feb 06 _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: Her 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. ...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2006 | BC-2005-00659

    Original file (BC-2005-00659.DOC) Auto-classification: Denied

    RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2005-00659 INDEX CODE: 108.07 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO MANDATORY CASE COMPLETION DATE: 28 Aug 06 _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: 1. Additionally, injuries from falling are not eligible for compensation under CRSC guidance unless evidence clearly shows some combat related event caused the fall. The DPPD evaluation is...