RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 

AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS 

 

IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2010-03892 

 COUNSEL: NONE 

 HEARING DESIRED: NO 

 

_________________________________________________________________ 

 

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: 

 

His service-connected disabilities of intervertebral disc 
syndrome (lumbar spine), and kidney stones, be assessed as combat 
related in order to qualify for compensation under the Combat 
Related Special Compensation (CRSC) Act. 

 

_________________________________________________________________ 

 

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: 

 

The CRSC office denied his request and claims he has not provided 
enough evidence to show that his service related disabilities are 
directly linked to combat-related (also training for 
combat/hazardous service) factors. 

 

The CRSC office also stated that his Department of Veterans 
Affairs (DVA) approved service related disabilities were incurred 
performing “normal duties” and that to be approved for 
compensation, clear documentation must be provided to indicate an 
injury/disability occurred and/or was caused by a specific 
combat-related factor rather than from “routine causes.” Nothing 
is “routine” when it comes to flying fighter aircraft in combat, 
or “normal” about landing them at night without any landing gear. 

 

He served 27 years as a fighter pilot, and has over 2,900 hours 
of flying time (142 hours in combat), all in tactical ejection 
seat (high G force) fighters. His back disability is directly 
related to sitting in a cramped ejection seat/high G fighter and 
his kidney stones are a direct result of not urinating 
before/during this same hazardous service and high stress 
combat/combat training can and will cause disabilities, just as 
real and painful as sudden or abrupt incidents. 

 

In support of his appeal, the applicant provides a personal 
statement, copies of documents relating to his CRSC application, 
Air Force and Army CRSC Website printouts, and new supporting 
medical records. 

 

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

 

_________________________________________________________________ 

 

 

 


STATEMENT OF FACTS: 

 

The applicant served on active duty in the Regular Air Force from 
11 Nov 82 until 31 Mar 09. He served as a fighter pilot, and was 
progressively promoted to the grade of colonel. On 1 Apr 09, he 
retired from the Air Force, having served 26 years, 4 months, and 
20 days on active duty. 

 

The applicant submitted a claim for CRSC for intervertebral disc 
syndrome (lumbar spine), and kidney stones; his application was 
disapproved. He requested reconsideration, and his request was 
denied. His application was disapproved based on the fact no 
evidence was provided to confirm his disabilities were the direct 
result of armed conflict, hazardous service, instrumentality of 
war, or simulating war. 

 

To qualify as combat related the service-connected disability 
must be either: (1) attributed to an injury for which the Purple 
Heart was awarded; or (2) incurred as a direct result of armed 
conflict, while engaged in hazardous service, in the performance 
of duties under conditions simulating war, or through an 
instrumentality of war; as determined under criteria prescribed 
by the Secretary of Defense. 

 

The CRSC program was established to provide compensation to 
certain retirees with Combat-Related disabilities that qualify 
under the criteria set forth in Title 10, United States Code, 
(10 USC) Section 1413a. 

 

_________________________________________________________________ 

 

AIR FORCE EVALUATION: 

 

AFPC/DPSDC recommends denial. DPSDC states the applicant’s 
conditions do not meet the mandatory criteria for compensation 
under the CRSC program as outlined under the provisions of 
10 U.S.C., Section 1413a. 

 

DPSDC states the fact that a member incurred a disability during 
a period of hazardous service is not sufficient by itself to 
support a combat-related determination. There must be a 
definite, documented, causal relationship between the hazardous 
service and the resulting disability. 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. After reviewing the applicant’s documentation, DPSDC 
was unable to identify a combat-related event as the cause of his 
disabilities. 

 

It is evident the applicant had treatment for his kidney stones 
during military service; however, there is no evidence to 


indicate this condition was directly caused by performance of his 
duties as a pilot. Medical documentation, dated 14 Apr 04, 
reflects “He passed a small left ureteral stone last fall, and 
had a metabolic evaluation that showed low urine volume as the 
only identifiable risk factor. I discussed this and he has 
changed his hydration habits.” There is no indication of a 
specific cause for his kidney stones identified in his 
documentation. 

 

With regards to his back condition, a review of his Service 
Medical Record reveals the following: 1) Standard Form (SF) 600, Chronological Record of Medical Care, dated 18 Sep 89, states 
“back pain-started upon rising from sitting position;” and 2) Emergency Care and Treatment, dated 16 Sep 89, states “low back 
pain and heavy lifting yesterday.” 

 

DPSDC states after reviewing the applicant’s documentation they 
were unable to identify a combat-related event as the cause of 
his disabilities. 

 

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

 

_________________________________________________________________ 

 

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: 

 

On 14 Jan 11, a copy of the Air Force evaluation was forwarded to 
the applicant for review and comment within 30 days. 

 

On 19 Jan 11, the applicant requested his case be 
administratively closed. 

 

On 22 Feb 11, the applicant requested that his case be 
reactivated. In response to the Air Force evaluation, the 
applicant states both his denial letters and the recommendation 
to the AFBCMR have stated he has not provided any “evidence” his 
DVA approved service-related disabilities were the direct result 
of armed conflict or simulating war. What they do not mention is 
his repeated request for them to answer the simple question of, 
“How do you show evidence of injury to chronic prolonged exposure 
to hazardous service?” 

 

The DVA has stated his injuries are “service related,” not 
“injuries while incurred on active duty.” His service was as a 
fighter pilot flying high G ejection seat fighters. In the 
course of his 27 years of service, he has flown over 2,900 hours 
in armed conflict and simulated war. He meets and exceeds all 
qualifying requirements set forth by both the Air Force and Army 
CRSC offices and his service related injuries are not routine. 

 

The applicant's complete response is at Exhibit E. 

 

On 1 May 11, the applicant provided additional documentation to 
include in his appeal. He provided a news article from the Air 


Force Times, dated 18 Apr 11, titled “DoD asks helo pilots about 
their back pain.” 

 

On 1 Aug 11, he provided a second news article from the Stars and 
Stripes, dated 29 Jul 11, titled “Survey: Helo aviators suffer 
back, neck pain.” These articles confirm his argument for CRSC 
approval, that chronic prolonged exposure to hazardous service 
can and will cause debilitating injuries. Although his flying 
was not in helicopters, ejection seat fighters do cause the same 
back issues and according to the news articles, the DoD is now 
admitting this. 

 

The applicant’s complete responses, with attachments, are at 
Exhibit F & G. 

 

_________________________________________________________________ 

 

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 an error or injustice. The 
available evidence of record and the documentation provided by 
the applicant does not support a finding that his service-
connected disabilities of intervertebral disc syndrome (lumbar 
spine) and kidney stones 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, do not qualify for compensation under the CRSC Act. 
Regarding the applicant’s question on how does he show evidence 
of an injury due to chronic prolonged exposure to hazardous 
service. The Board, by law is a function of the Secretary of the 
Air Force acting through a Board of Civilians of the Department 
to correct an error or injustice; when necessary; however, the 
Board is not an investigative body and this request is not within 
the purview of the Board. While the applicant contends he has 
been denied benefits under the CRSC program for disabilities 
awarded by the DVA which were determined to be service related; 
and challenges the CRSC Board’s decision, we do not find his 
evidence sufficient to conclude that the Air Force office of 
primary responsibility has not properly evaluated his case 
pursuant to the governing statute and guidance. Accordingly, we 
agree with their opinion and recommendation and adopt the 
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. 

 

_________________________________________________________________ 

 


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 Docket Number 
BC-2011-03892 in Executive Session on 13 Dec 11, under the 
provisions of AFI 36-2603: 

 

 , Panel Chair 

 , Member 

 , Member 

 

The following documentary evidence was considered: 

 

 Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 8 Oct 10, w/atchs. 

 Exhibit B. Applicant's Master Personnel Records. 

 Exhibit C. Letter, AFPC/DPSDC, dated 9 Dec 10, w/atchs. 

 Exhibit D. Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 14 Jan 11. 

 Exhibit E. Letter, Applicant, dated 22 Feb 11. 

 Exhibit F. Letter, Applicant, dated 1 May 11, w/atch. 

 Exhibit G. Letter, Applicant, dated 1 Aug 11, w/atch. 

 

 

 

 

 

 Panel Chair