RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 

AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS 

 

IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2011-00724 

 COUNSEL: NONE 

 HEARING DESIRED: NO 

 

_________________________________________________________________ 

 

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: 

 

His service-connected medical conditions, bilateral hearing 
loss/tinnitus and bilateral pes planus with fibromatosis and 
onychomycosis, be assessed as combat related in order to qualify 
for compensation under the Combat Related Special Compensation 
(CRSC) Act. 

 

_________________________________________________________________ 

 

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: 

 

His CRSC claim was denied because there was no evidence to 
confirm his disabilities were combat-related. 

 

He is eligible for CRSC due to the fact his disabilities were 
incurred as a direct result of: (1) An instrumentality of war 
(aircraft, combat vehicles, weapons, etc); and (2) Training that 
simulated war (exercises, field training, etc.) 

 

He has provided documentation to the CRSC Board and feels he is 
not being judged fairly. 

 

In support of his request, the applicant provides a personal 
statement, copies of medical documents, deployment orders, 
photos, and signed statements from Department of Veterans Affairs 
(DVA) doctors and various supervisors and co-workers. 

 

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

 

_________________________________________________________________ 

 

STATEMENT OF FACTS: 

 

On 29 Apr 88, the applicant contracted his initial enlistment in 
the Regular Air Force. He was progressively promoted to the 
grade of technical sergeant, having assumed that grade effective 
and with a date of rank of 1 Sep 03. He served as a Maintenance 
Management Production Craftsman, Recruiter, and a Military 
Training Instructor. He voluntarily retired from the Air Force 
on 30 Apr 08, having served 20 years and 2 days on active duty. 

 

The applicant submitted a claim for CRSC for impaired hearing, 
tinnitus and bilateral pes planus with fibromatosis 
onychomycosis, and his application was disapproved on 4 Nov 10. 


He requested reconsideration, and his request was denied on 
15 Feb 11. 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 
U.S.C.) 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. 

 

The VA awards service connected disabilities based on their 
standards. They resolve doubt in the interest of the veteran and 
grant service connection for injuries or diseases incurred while 
in service. While service connection for disabilities is 
required for initial eligibility for CRSC consideration, CRSC 
criteria is more stringent and requires documentation to support 
a qualifying combat-related event as the “direct” cause of a 
disability. 

 

When determining if a person qualifies for CRSC due to impaired 
hearing or tinnitus, the CRSC Board considers the occupation of 
the individual and the continual or direct (close proximity) 
exposure to combat-related noise hazards the individual was 
subjected to during his or her career. Many specialties may have 
occasional or indirect exposure to flight line noise due to the 
location of their duty sections (such as the perimeter of the 
flight line, entry control points, crossing the flight line, 
aircraft hangars or warehouses), or requirements to periodically 
spend time on the flight line itself. Based on input from 
functional area experts, the CRSC Board determined that the 
applicant’s career field is one of the specialties considered to 
have occasional or indirect exposure to qualifying combat-related 
noise; therefore, to award CRSC, there must be clear 
documentation of an acoustic trauma occurring due to a combat-
related event (an example would be a medical document showing 
“member is complaining of ringing in ears/hearing loss after 
guarding an aircraft overnight while the engine was running.”) 


Documentation provided does not confirm the applicant incurred an 
acoustic trauma from a combat-related event. 

 

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. While the 
documentation provided reflects foot pain, there is no 
confirmation of a combat-related event as the direct cause of the 
applicant’s bilateral pes planus with fibromatosis and 
onychomycosis. 

 

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

 

_________________________________________________________________ 

 

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: 

 

Upon denial of his CRSC application, he resubmitted his claim as 
directed with detailed and well documented objective documentary 
evidence and information only to have it denied for a second 
time. 

 

He met the criteria to be eligible for CRSC; however, the Air 
Force CRSC Board fails to recognize his disabilities were a 
direct result of his military duty training exercises and were 
caused by instruments of war. This is not just his opinion, but, 
a fact as stated by several government medical doctors. The 
documentation/proof he submitted were overly scrutinized by the 
CRSC Board members and then disregarded during the decision by 
the Air Force CRSC approving official. 

 

He questioned the CRSC Board’s decision and was told he did not 
provide documentation regarding decibel loss in both ears. He 
did provide this information, in fact, several times. He emailed 
the information, and upon review of his hearing tests, he was 
told he met the requirements for the hearing loss; however, his 
“career field” does not qualify under the current Air Force CRSC 
guidance. 

 

He did not have occasional or indirect exposure to flight line 
noises. He was in direct exposure for more than eight years to 
flight-line noises and aircraft movement. It is a medical fact 
that prolonged exposure to loud sounds is the most common cause 
of tinnitus. 

 

He has a disability and provided the required documentation that 
meets the CRSC qualifications, and hopes that he will not be 
discriminated against because of his career field. 

 

The applicant's complete response is at Exhibit E. 

 


_________________________________________________________________ 

 

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 medical conditions, bilateral hearing loss/tinnitus and 
bilateral pes planus with fibromatosis and onychomycosis meet the 
mandatory criteria to qualify for compensation under the CRSC 
program. While the applicant contends the documentation he 
provided clearly shows that he was in direct exposure to flight 
line noises and aircraft movement for more than eight years, 
after our review of the complete evidence of record, we accept 
the recommendation of the Air Force office of primary 
responsibility (OPR) to deny the requested relief and adopt its 
rationale as the primary basis for our determination the 
applicant has not been the victim of error or injustice. In this 
respect, the CRSC Board determined the applicant’s career field 
to be one of the specialties considered to have occasional or 
indirect exposure to qualifying combat-related noise. Based on 
applicable policy, there must be clear documentation of an 
acoustic trauma occurring due to a combat-related event. While 
the applicant strongly asserts he meets the requirement for CRSC, 
we do not find the evidence he provides is sufficient to conclude 
the CRSC board erroneously determined he is ineligible for CRSC. 
Although the applicant notes the medical evaluation by the 
Department of Veterans Affairs, the Air Force is not bound by 
their findings or recommendations. We do not dispute that the 
applicant may suffer from the medical conditions he raises, but 
his Air Force records do not support that his conditions occurred 
under circumstances that meet the criteria for award of CRSC 
benefits. Therefore, 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-2011-00724 in Executive Session on 24 Oct 11, under the 
provisions of AFI 36-2603: 

 

 , Panel Chair 

 , Member 

 , Member 

 

The following documentary evidence was considered: 

 

 Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 2 Mar 11, w/atchs. 

 Exhibit B. Applicant's Master Personnel Records. 

 Exhibit C. Letter, AFPC/DPSDC, dated 31 Mar 11, w/atchs. 

 Exhibit D. Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 15 Apr 11. 

 Exhibit E. Letter, Applicant, dated 21 Apr 11, w/atchs. 

 

 

 

 

 

 Panel Chair