RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 

AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS 

 

IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2010-03027 

 COUNSEL: NONE 

 HEARING DESIRED: YES 

 

_________________________________________________________________ 

 

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: 

 

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

 

2. He be authorized CRDP. 

 

_________________________________________________________________ 

 

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: 

 

His record should be corrected to show he was stationed at the 
Air Force Base in Duluth Minnesota. At this location, he 
performed alert duties and would scramble to identify enemy 
aircraft flying into American airspace over the North Pole. 

 

In support of his request, the applicant provides copies of 
personal letters; his DD Form 214, Armed Forces of the United 
States Report of Transfer or Discharge; and a letter to his 
senator. 

 

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

 

_________________________________________________________________ 

 

STATEMENT OF FACTS: 

 

On 29 April 1959, an Air Force Physical Evaluation Board (PEB) 
found the applicant unfit for duty due to Anemia and recommended 
he be placed on the Temporary Disability Retired Listed (TDRL) 
with a 60 percent disability rating in the grade of captain. The 
PEB concluded the applicant’s disability was not caused by an 
instrumentality of war nor was his disability incurred in combat. 

 

On 2 April 1964, the applicant was removed from the TDRL and 
permanently retired in the grade of captain with a disability 
rating of 70 percent. He served 6 years, 7 months and 26 days of 
active service for retirement. 

 


On 7 October 2009, the applicant applied for CRSC for Anemia. 
The applicant claimed his illness was incurred from the stress of 
flying missions. On 25 January 2010, the applicant’s claim was 
denied because there was no evidence to confirm his disability 
was the direct result of armed conflict, hazardous service, 
instrumentality of war, or simulating war. 

 

_________________________________________________________________ 

 

AIR FORCE EVALUATION: 

 

AFPC/DPSDC recommends denial. DPSDC states by law, determinations 
of whether a disability is combat-related will be based on the 
preponderance of available documentary information. All relevant 
documentary information is to be weighed in relation to known 
facts and circumstances, and determinations will be made on the 
basis of credible, objective documentary information in the 
records as distinguished from personal opinion, speculation, or 
conjecture. DPSDC states the applicant’s condition does not meet 
the mandatory criteria for compensation under the CRSC program as 
outlined under the provisions of Title 10, U.S.C., chapter 71, 
section 1413a. Additionally, in accordance with DD Form 2860, Claim for Combat-Related Special Compensation (CRSC), the fact 
that a member incurred a disability while participating in combat 
operations is not sufficient by itself to support a combat-
related determination. There must be a definite, documented, 
causal relationship between the armed conflict and the resulting 
disability. After reviewing the applicant’s documentation, DPSDC 
was unable to identify a combat-related event as the cause of his 
disability. 

 

In the applicant’s original claim, he stated he was assigned to 
Air Defense Command and flew F-86D aircraft. He stated he was 
“scrambled off when Russian bombers would penetrate the U.S. air 
space.” On his DD Form 149, Application for Correction of 
Military Record, he states the stress of flying these missions 
caused his illness. He also states doctors found he was 
saturated with iron and needed to be “bled.” 

 

The complete DPSDC evaluation, with attachment, is at Exhibit C. 

 

Defense Finance and Accounting Service (DFAS) recommends denial. 
DFAS states the applicant’s disabilities are not combat related, 
he is not eligible for CRSC, and he served less than 20 years of 
service. The applicant is further not entitled to Concurrent 
Retirement and Disability Pay (CRDP). Title 10, USC, section 
1414 provides that a member retired for disability with less than 
20 years of service computed under 1405 or 12732 is not eligible 
for the CRDP. 

 

The complete DFAS evaluation is at Exhibit D. 

 

_________________________________________________________________ 


APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: 

 

The applicant states he is not requesting his Anemia be re-
evaluated under the CRSC Program. He is requesting to be 
approved for CRSC payments because he met all the requirements 
for monetary benefits. The “Afterburner” newspaper article he 
submitted indicates a 100 percent disability is required to be 
eligible to receive CRSC. It appears the Board is denigrating 
all his criteria for qualifying for CRSC; placing the 100 percent 
denial on one criteria “failure to have served 20 years.” 

 

The applicant’s complete response, with attachments, 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 not timely filed; however, it is in the 
interest of justice to excuse the failure to timely file. 

 

3. Insufficient relevant evidence has been presented to 
demonstrate the existence of an error or injustice. The 
available evidence of record does not support a finding that the 
service-connected medical conditions he believes are combat-
related were 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. While the applicant states his 100 percent disability 
entitles him to the monetary benefits under CRSC and provides the 
“Afterburner” news article as documentation to challenge the CRSC 
Board’s decision, we do not find his assertions and 
documentation, in and by themselves, sufficiently persuasive to 
override the rationale provided by the Air Force office of 
primary responsibility. Accordingly, we agree with the opinions 
and recommendations of the Air Force offices of primary 
responsibility and adopt their rationale expressed as the basis 
for our conclusion the applicant has not been the victim of an 
error or injustice. In the absence of evidence to the contrary, 
we find no basis to recommend granting the relief sought. 

 

 

 

 

 

 


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 issue(s) 
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 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-2010-03027 in Executive Session on 14 June 2011, under 
the provisions of AFI 36-2603: 

 

Panel Chair 

Member 

Member 

 

The following documentary evidence was considered: 

 

 Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 4 Aug 10, w/atchs. 

 Exhibit B. Applicant’s Master Personnel Record. 

 Exhibit C. Letter, AFPC/DPSDC, dated 17 Sep 10. 

 Exhibit D. Letter, DFAS, dated 1 Oct 10. 

 Exhibit E. Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 5 Nov 10. 

 Exhibit F. Applicant’s Response, dated 24 Nov 10, w/atchs. 

 

 

 

 

 

 Panel Chair