RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 

AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS 

 

IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2011-01714 

 COUNSEL: NONE 

 HEARING DESIRED: NO 

 

________________________________________________________________ 

 

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: 

 

His Air Force (AF) Form 356, Findings and Recommended 
Disposition of USAF Physical Evaluation Board, be changed to 
reflect “yes” in Section 10, Item C, 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; and 
Item D, Disability was the direct result of a combat related 
injury. 

 

________________________________________________________________ 

 

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: 

 

Upon being evaluated by the Department of Veteran Affairs (DVA) 
and civilian physicians, it was concluded that his conditions of 
Asthma and Chronic Sinusitis were the result of his exposure to 
the smoke from burning oil well fires, dust, and extreme heat 
while being deployed during the Gulf War. 

 

In support of his request, the applicant provides copies of his 
AF Form 356; AF Form 1180, Action on Informal Physical 
Evaluation Board Findings and Recommended Disposition; Progress 
Notes; DVA Rating Decision; and physician statements. 

 

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

 

________________________________________________________________ 

 

STATEMENT OF FACTS: 

 

The applicant is a former member of the Regular Air Force who 
served from 2 August 1990 to 21 July 1994 in support of 
Operation DESERT SHIELD/STORM. A Medical Evaluation Board (MEB) 
Report, dated 8 April 1994, indicates the applicant was 
diagnosed with Asthma and Hypofibrinogenemia (a deficiency of 
fibrinogen, a blood clotting factor, in the blood) incurred 
while entitled to basic pay. The MEB referred the applicant’s 
case for review by the Informal Physical Evaluation Board 
(IPEB). 

 

The IPEB findings, dated 18 April 1994, indicates the applicant 
was found unfit for duty due to his physical disabilities of 
Hypofibrinogenemia (rated at 30 percent) and Asthma (rated at 10 


percent) for a total of a compensable disability rating of 40 
percent. The AF Form 356 indicates the applicant’s disabling 
conditions were incurred in the line of duty in time of War or 
National Emergency or after 14 September 1978; however, they 
found his conditions were not the direct result of armed 
conflict or caused by an instrumentality of War, and that his 
disabilities were not the direct result of a combat related 
injury. As a result, the IPEB recommended the applicant be 
placed on the Permanent Disability Retired List (PDRL) with a 
compensable disability rating of 40 percent. 

 

On 10 May 1994, the applicant agreed with the findings and 
recommended disposition of the IPEB by signing the AF Form 1180. 
According to Special Order ACD-1544, issued 24 May 1994, the 
applicant was honorably released from active duty effective 
21 July 1994, and placed on the PDRL effective 22 July 1994. He 
served 10 years, 10 months, and 1 day on active duty. 

 

A DVA Rating Decision, dated 24 October 2008, indicates the DVA 
granted the applicant a 60 percent disability rating for his 
condition of Bronchial Asthma; 30 percent for his condition of 
Hypofibrinogenemia; 10 percent for his condition of 
Postoperative Internal Derangement, Right Knee; and 10 percent 
for his condition of Sinusitis. 

 

________________________________________________________________ 

 

AIR FORCE EVALUATION: 

 

AFPC/DPSD recommends denial. DPSD states the preponderance of 
evidence reflects that no error or injustice occurred during the 
disability process or at the time of retirement. The 
applicant’s DD Form 214, Certificate of Release or Discharge 
from Active Duty, indicates he served in support of Operation 
DESERT SHIELD/STORM from 2 August 1990 to 21 July 1994. It also 
indicates that he served in the Operation DESERT SHIELD/STORM 
Area of Responsibility (AOR), but does specify dates of 
deployment or locations. According to his 5 March 1992 Enlisted 
Performance Report (EPR), he was deployed to Al-Kharj, Saudi 
Arabia. Similarly, an 18 June 1992 Air Force Achievement Medal 
citation also places him at Al-Kharj Air Base, Saudi Arabia and 
specifies serving a three-month period from 19 June 1991 to 
16 September 1991. However, based on his service record, it is 
difficult to place him within the immediate vicinity of where 
these fires were known to have occurred. In fact, Al-Kharj, 
Saudi Arabia, is several hundred miles Southwest of those 
locations. Moreover, the prevailing winds in Kuwait and the 
adjacent area blow to the Northeast rather than to the 
Southwest. This does not establish the applicant wasn’t exposed 
to oil well fires or their debris, just that the available 
evidence does not place him in the locations most commonly 
associated with such exposure. Clearly, he was exposed to dust 
and extreme temperatures while deployed. The provided physician 
narrative summary, dated 6 April 1994, indicates he was tested 


for allergies in 1993 and a dust allergy was noted at the time. 
However, the dust allergy is not noted as being exceptionally 
severe and the applicant had no evidence of these health 
problems prior to his deployment. As noted in the final 
paragraph of the narrative summary, all of these conditions 
manifested in the years immediately following his deployment. 
This certainly suggests it is possible there could be a 
correlation between his conditions and deployment. However, the 
fact that a condition initially manifests under deployed 
conditions does not automatically make it a “direct result of 
armed conflict or caused by an instrumentality of War in the 
line of duty during a period or War; or, as the direct result of 
a combat related injury, as defined and outlined in existing 
guidance. 

 

After considering all the facts, the IPEB found they did not 
find adequate evidence in the file to establish the direct 
relationship to either combat or the instrumentality of War 
required under guidance. If the applicant disagreed, he had two 
opportunities to appeal the IPEB’s findings. He chose not to do 
so. Moreover, based on the established definitions and the 
facts available under review, even with the benefit of years of 
subsequent medical research in the area of “Gulf War Illness” 
and related conditions, there is no obvious reason to suspect 
that if the applicant’s medical conditions were reviewed today 
by the IPEB, they would consider his conditions were caused by 
an instrumentality of War or as a direct result of armed 
conflict. 

 

The complete DPSD evaluation is at Exhibit C. 

 

________________________________________________________________ 

 

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: 

 

It is hard and frustrating fighting a system that is doing 
everything in its power to deny his appeal. When you put your 
life on the line and sacrifice your life for this great country, 
you expect more out of the system. 

 

The applicant’ complete rebuttal 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 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 error or injustice. The available 


evidence of record does not support a finding that the service-
connected medical condition the applicant believes is combat-
related was 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. Therefore, 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 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 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-
2010-04745 in Executive Session on 13 September 2011, under the 
provisions of AFI 36-2603: 

 

, Panel Chair 

, Member 

, Member 

 

The following documentary evidence pertaining to AFBCMR Docket 
Number BC-2011-01714 was considered: 

 

 Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 5 May 11, w/atchs. 

 Exhibit B. Applicant's Master Personnel Records. 

 Exhibit C. Letter, AFPC/DPSD, dated 27 Jun 11. 

 Exhibit D. Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 22 Jul 11. 

 Exhibit E. Letter, Applicant, dated 1 Aug 11. 

 

 

 

 

 

 Panel Chair