RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
             AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS


IN THE MATTER OF:      DOCKET NUMBER:  BC-2006-01992
            INDEX CODE:  108.07

            COUNSEL:  NONE

            HEARING DESIRED:  NO

MANDATORY CASE COMPLETION DATE:  2 JAN 08

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

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

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

It is apparent that the strain of pulling high G’s along with other  strains
and vibration on the back would cause injury.  The  Department  of  Veterans
Affairs (VA) examiners and  his  physicians  indicate  flying  is  the  most
likely and only logical cause of his injury.  The damage is from many  hours
of stress and trauma, not one specific instance.   He  further  states  that
medical studies have shown that flying causes degeneration of the back.

In support of his request, the applicant provided a personal  statement  and
documentation associated with his CRSC application.

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

_________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

The applicant entered active duty on 18 October 1953.  He was  progressively
promoted to the grade of colonel, having  assumed  that  grade  effective  1
January 1974 and with a date of rank of 1 July 1973.  On 31  December  1980,
he was relieved from active duty  and  retired  from  the  Air  Force  on  1
January 1981, having served 27 years, 2 months, and 13 days on active duty.



Available DVA records reflect a combined compensable rating of  90%  from  1
March 2006 for his unfitting conditions.

His CRSC application was approved for combat-related  injuries  on  26  June
2003 for prostate cancer and impairment of sphincter control.  However,  his
request for compensation for the conditions  of  degenerative  arthritis  of
the spine (lumbar) and paralysis of sciatic nerve  were  disapproved  on  29
December 2004  based  upon  the  fact  that  his  service-connected  medical
conditions were determined not to be combat-related.  He later appealed  the
Board’s decision which was disapproved on 21 October 2005 and 24 May 2006.

_________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

AFPC/DPPD recommends  denial.   DPPD  states  the  applicant  is  requesting
another review of his back condition.  He believes this  disability  is  due
to the stress he experienced while performing high G-force maneuvers  during
flight.  Applicant’s records reveal he  had  been  seen  numerous  times  by
medical personnel in reference to his back pain.  He  continued  to  receive
treatment over the years for his back pain; however, no cause or injury  was
ever noted.  The only evidence they can find  relating  to  the  applicant’s
condition to his experiences as an aircrew member is a  letter  from  Doctor
J.C.J., Consultant Neurologist and Attorney-at-Law, dated  12  August  2005,
well after the  applicant’s  retirement  in  1980,  and  his  original  CRSC
submission in 2003.  In this letter, the doctor provides  his  opinion  that
the applicant’s back condition should be considered  combat-related  because
“These complicated degenerative changes and  neurological  deficits  are  an
occupational condition secondary to cumulative trauma over twenty  years  of
flying,  not  from  an  isolated  injury.”   The  doctor  also  stated  that
“applicant’s lumbar spine disease and neurological sequellae are based on  a
reasonable  degree  of  medical  certainty,  causally  related   to   flying
airplanes on active duty in the Air Force.”

Although applicant’s condition has been deemed service-connected by the  VA,
their standard is to grant  service  connection  for  injuries  or  diseases
manifested (or residuals of these injuries were treated)  while  in-service,
and if necessary, resolve doubt in the interest of  the  veteran.   However,
simply being in an armed  conflict  or  exercise  environment,  being  in  a
military  vehicle,  or  performing  hazardous  service  (flight  crew,  EOD,
pararescue, etc.) does not automatically qualify an individual for CRSC.

The DPPD complete evaluation is at Exhibit C.




APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

The applicant reviewed the evaluation and indicates a cumulative  effect  of
flying high performance jets in combat and in hazardous service more  likely
than not caused his condition.

As a maintenance test  pilot  he  flew  functional  check  flights  to  test
aircraft for airworthiness.  This entailed a flight profile of pulling  4G’s
in each direction, checking  aircraft  stall  characteristics,  turning  the
aircraft upside down and shaking it,  dives  and  pull-ups,  and  all  other
checklist items.  The flight profile was repeated up to five  times  a  day.
As a combat pilot he flew close air support combat missions  which  entailed
low  altitude,  high  speed  flight  with  repeated  rapid  flight  attitude
changes, high G pull-ups, and jinxing to avoid anti-aircraft fire.

He indicates that he cannot present a single event that caused his  injuries
because there were countless instances of high stress flight throughout  his
career in the service.  There are documented studies  that  correlate  spine
injuries to the aviator’s duties.  The VA doctor and the  neurosurgeon  that
performed his back surgery  explained  that  the  stress  and  vibration  of
flying causes spine deterioration.

There is no evidence of any event(s) in his life that caused his  condition,
other than  combat  and/or  hazardous  service  flight  in  high-performance
aircraft.  Such flight activity, combined with  countless  associated  hours
directly connected to actual flight,  is  the  only  logical  cause  of  his
condition.

In addition, DPPD states that “the left foot pain is caused by  his  jogging
as it relates to the radiculopathy above.”  This is an error.  In fact,  the
left foot pain is/was due to  an  actual  injury,  not  radiculopathy.   The
radiculopathy  is  on  the  right  side,  from  the  right  S1  nerve   root
compression.

He further states that he loved every minute of flying and would  gladly  do
it again.  It was a good feeling to know he was serving his  country  during
the cold war and during the Vietnam era.  He respectfully request  that  his
case be  decided  on  an  individual  basis  rather  than  IAW  DOD  Program
Guidance.

Applicant’s complete response, with attachments, is at Exhibit F.

_________________________________________________________________

ADDITIONAL AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

The AFBCMR Medical Consultant recommends  denial.   The  Medical  Consultant
states the applicant  flew  fighter  jet  aircraft  between  1954  and  1972
accumulating approximately 5000 total career flying hours.  Six years  later
in 1978 at the age of 46 he sought care for symptoms  associated  with  mild
osteoarthritis/degenerative arthritis/disc  disease  of  the  lumbar  spine.
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.  In the absence of  a
discrete,  significant  traumatic  event   productive   of   biomechanically
significant change of anatomic structure, conditions  such  as  degenerative
arthritis, degenerative disc disease or chronic mechanical pain  are  common
in the general population and occur in similar fashion on both aviators  and
non-aviators.  Action and disposition in this case are proper and  equitable
reflecting compliance with Air Force directives that implement the law.

The BCMR Medical Consultant’s complete evaluation is at Exhibit D.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

On 1 June 2007, the evaluation was forwarded to  the  applicant  for  review
and comment within 30 days (Exhibit G).  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  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 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-2006-
01992 in Executive Session on 23 July 2007, under the provisions of AFI  36-
2603:

      Mr. Thomas S. Markiewicz, Chair
      Mr. Alan A. Blomgren, Member
      Mr. Michael V. Barbino, Member

The following documentary evidence was considered:

    Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 27 Jun 06, w/atchs.
    Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
    Exhibit C.  Letter, AFPC/DPPD, dated 11 Oct 06.
    Exhibit D.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 20 Oct 06.
    Exhibit E.  Letter, Applicant, dated 17 Nov 06.
    Exhibit F.  Letter, BCMR Medical Consultant, dated 29 May 07.
    Exhibit G.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 1 Jun 07.





                                   THOMAS S. MARKIEWICZ
                                   Chair