RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 

 AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS 

 

IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2010-00337 

 

 XXXXXXX COUNSEL: NONE 

 

 HEARING DESIRED: NO 

 

________________________________________________________________ 

 

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: 

 

His AF Form 356, Findings and Recommended Disposition of United 
States Air Force (USAF) Physical Evaluation Board, dated 
31 Jan 06, be changed to reflect his injuries were a direct 
result of enemy action …, and that he be awarded benefits under 
the Combat-Related Special Compensation (CRSC) Program. 

 

________________________________________________________________ 

 

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: 

 

His disability, chronic back pain, status post L4-5 discectomy 
and fusion, on the AF Form 356, dated 31 Jan 06, Item 10C, Disability was the direct result of armed conflict or was caused 
by an instrumentality of war and incurred in the line of duty 
during a period of war, should reflect “yes,” because his 
disability was clearly caused by multiple “instruments of war.” 

 

Item 10D, Disability was the direct result of a combat related 
injury,” should reflect that his disability was the result of a 
combat related injury, an injury that was continuously 
misdiagnosed by military doctors and ignored by commanders. 

 

Item 15, Remarks, while it indicates that his contention was 
that his injury was the direct result of “armed conflict,” it 
would be more correctly reflected as combat related. 

 

He was not properly prepared for the Physical Evaluation Board 
(PEB) process by his PEB Liaison Officer (PEBLO). Also, he 
attributes not catching the error at the time due to being on 
pain medications, including prescribes narcotics, for some time. 
During the Formal PEB, he was distracted and pre-occupied 
because of the improper handling of his case by the PEBLO and 
his commanders. 

 

In support of his appeal, the applicant provides a personal 
statement; a copy of the Informal Physical Evaluation Board 
(IPEB) findings, and extracts from his service medical records 
(SMR) and the Department of Veterans Affairs (DVA) records. 

 

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

 

________________________________________________________________ 

 

STATEMENT OF FACTS: 

 

The applicant was permanently retired for disability effective 
21 March 2006, with a disability rating of 40 percent. He 
completed 22 years, 1 month, and 18 days of active and inactive 
service for retirement. 

 

________________________________________________________________ 

 

AIR FORCE EVALUATION: 

 

AFPC/DPSDC recommends denial of applicant’s request for CRSC 
benefits for Degenerative Arthritis of the Spine (lumbar and 
cervical) and Non-Hodgkin’s Lymphoma stating, in part, that 
these conditions did not meet the mandatory criteria for 
compensation under the CRSC program as outlined under the 
provisions of Title 10 USC, Chapter 71, Section 1413a. 

 

The fact that a member incurred a disability in an area of armed 
conflict, while participating in combat operations or during a 
period of hazardous service is not sufficient by itself to 
support combat-related determination. There must be a definite, 
documented, causal relationship between the armed conflict and 
the resulting disability. 

 

Even if the PEB had found the applicant’s back condition to be 
combat-related he would not have been approved for CRSC. Their 
process and standards of determinations are governed under a 
different directive than determines a member’s ability to remain 
fit for active duty. Their decision does not automatically 
qualify a disability as combat-related under the CRSC program. 
The CRSC program is designed to provide compensation for combat-
related injuries and their standards are much more rigorous when 
determining disabilities under current criteria. It was never 
the intent to imply that the PEB findings prevented the 
applicant from being approved for his conditions. 

 

The complete AFPC/DPSDC evaluation, with attachments, is at 
Exhibit C. 

 

AFPC/DPSD recommends denial, stating, in part, the preponderance 
of evidence reflects that no error or injustice occurred during 
the disability process or at the time of retirement. The Board 
reviewed the narrative regarding the applicant’s medical 
condition of chronic back pain, status post L-45 discectomy and 
fusion. They noted, “In regard to the member’s contention that 
his injury was a direct result of armed conflict, …, the fact 
that a member may have incurred a disability during a period of 
war or in an area of armed conflict, or while participating in 


combat operations is not sufficient proof to establish an injury 
is a direct result of armed conflict. There must be a definite 
causal relationship between the armed conflict and the resulting 
unfitting disability. They found no such causal relationship in 
this case.” 

 

The complete AFPC/DPSD evaluation is at Exhibit D. 

 

________________________________________________________________ 

 

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: 

 

The applicant provides a response to clarify his request and to 
further explain the reasons he believes the AF Form 356 should 
be changed. He is not requesting a readdress of his CRSC claim. 
He believes the Non-Hodgkin’s Lymphoma was likely caused by the 
various “burn pits” in Iraq and Afghanistan, smoke which he flew 
through on almost every occasion. 

 

He has provided limited information to document his claim 
because the documents he need are still “classified” and he is 
unable to obtain them. 

 

He is only requesting the designation on the spinal injury to be 
changed to “combat-related,” because he believes the NHL will be 
put on the DVA’s “presumptive” list just as Agent Orange was for 
the Vietnam Veterans. Had his spinal injuries been properly 
diagnosed initially this would not be an issue. 

 

The applicant’s complete response is at Exhibit F. 

 

________________________________________________________________ 

 

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. We took notice 
of the applicant's complete submission in judging the merits of 
the case; however, we agree with the opinion and recommendation 
of the Air Force offices of primary responsibility and adopt 
their rationale as the basis for our conclusion the applicant 
has not been the victim of an error or injustice. Therefore, in 
the absence of evidence to the contrary, we find no basis to 
recommend granting the relief sought in this application. 

 

________________________________________________________________ 

 


The following members of the Board considered Docket Number BC-
2010-00337 in Executive Session on 3 March 2011, under the 
provisions of AFI 36-2603: 

 

The following documentary evidence was considered: 

 

 Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 18 Jan 10, w/atchs. 

 Exhibit B. Applicant's Master Personnel Records. 

 Exhibit C. Letter, AFPC/DPSDC, dated 23 Feb 10, w/atch. 

 Exhibit D. Letter, AFPC/DPSD, dated 11 Mar 10. 

 Exhibit E. Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 14 May 10. 

 Exhibit F. Letter, Applicant, dated 28 May 10. 

 

 

 

 

 Panel Chair