RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 

AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS 

 

 

IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2011-02867 

 

 COUNSEL: 

 

 HEARING DESIRED: YES 

 

 

________________________________________________________________ 

 

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: 

 

His official records be corrected to reflect that his post-
traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) was combat related. 

 

________________________________________________________________ 

 

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: 

 

His PTSD derives from missions flown in combat operations. The 
Air Force Disability Evaluation System (DES) incorrectly 
assessed his PTSD as non-combat related, as evidenced by the 
9 May 08 Department of Veterans Affairs (DVA) determination that 
his PTSD (generalized anxiety disorder with depressive features, 
and obsessive-compulsive disorder) was service connected and 
combat related. 

 

The applicant’s disabling condition occurred as a direct result 
of Hazardous Service that is fully documented in his records: 

 

 1. His Officer Performance Report (OPR) which closed out 
25 Mar 05 states he was deployed an “incredible” 330 of 365 
days, flew over 20 missions, and over 100 combat/combat support 
hours. 

 

 2. The service aggravation came from many years of call 
ups to active duty, as evidenced by his multiple DD Forms 214, Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty. For much 
of his active duty time since 1999, he received hazardous duty 
pay. 

 

 3. He flew an aircraft that had previously experienced 
mechanical failures and he was forced into an emergency landing 
due to depressurization of the aircraft. 

 

 4. While on active duty he was required to pilot a plane 
that contained a decapitated body, and other human remains. 

 

In support of his appeal, the applicant provides an expanded 
statement, copies of separation orders, his DVA Rating Decision, 
his LOD determination, multiple DD Forms 214, his MEB Report, 
and selected AF personnel documents. 


 

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

 

________________________________________________________________ 

 

STATEMENT OF FACTS: 

 

The applicant was an Air Force Reserve officer and a pilot, who 
was relieved from active duty and placed on the Temporary 
Disability Retired List (TDRL), effective 28 Nov 09, with a 
combined compensable disability rating of 50 percent for a non-
combat related physical disability. 

 

On 6 Mar 12, according to information obtained from AFPC/DPSDD, 
the applicant was transferred from the TDRL and permanently 
retired for physical disability with a combined compensable 
disability rating of 30 percent for his non-combat related PTSD. 

 

The remaining relevant facts pertaining to this application are 
described in the letter prepared by the Air Force office of 
primary responsibility (OPR) which is attached at Exhibit C. 

 

________________________________________________________________ 

 

AIR FORCE EVALUATION: 

 

AFPC/DPSDD recommends denial, indicating there is no evidence of 
an error or injustice. The DVA awards service connection for 
claimed disability but does not make a determination as to 
whether conditions are “combat related.” Therefore, the DVA 
found the member’s claimed stressors were supported by in-
service medical documentation and thus met the DVA 
qualifications for service connection of the applicant’s 
condition of PTSD. Any determinations made by the DVA are not 
made under Title 10 definitions or guidelines and therefore are 
not applicable to Service determinations. In fact, Department 
of Defense Instruction 1332.38 explains that a condition may be 
combat related under the category of hazardous service if, “The 
disability was incurred during a performance of duties that 
present a higher degree of danger to Service personnel due to 
the level of exposure to actual or simulated armed conflict. 
The fact a member incurred the 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.” As such, the payment of 
hazardous duty pay during the period in which an injury or 
illness occurred is not enough to determine a condition to be 
combat related. Further, the anxiety the applicant suffered 
over potential aircraft malfunction or incidents indicate the 
obsessive fears characteristics of OCD, not combat related PTSD. 
The applicant’s medical documentation details his mental health 
stressors as relating to disaster relief flights and missions 
transporting human remains. While traumatic, these 


circumstances do not qualify as inherent dangers of flight 
duties. It should be noted that the applicant did not himself 
suffer any incidents or flight related trauma. 

 

The Informal Physical Evaluation Board (IPEB) for his case 
recommended placement on the TDRL due to his Obsessive 
Compulsive Disorder (OCD) which existed prior to service with 
service aggravation. At the time, they also found that his 
disability was not combat related. The applicant concurred with 
the findings. If the applicant did not agree with the IPEB’s 
recommendation, he could have appeared before the Formal PEB 
(FPEB) represented by council, and if he disagreed with the 
FPEB’s recommendation he could have submitted a rebuttal and his 
case would have been forwarded to the Secretary of the Air Force 
Personnel Council for their review and finalization. He did 
not. 

 

Finally, the MEB Overall Summary dated 3 Jul 09 (Tab A, 
Attachment H, Page 8) clearly states, “the patient has a 
lifelong history of anxiety which began in childhood and through 
developmental events and exposures significantly worsened in the 
military environment.” The IPEB commented in its remarks of Nov 
09, “PTSD appears to be primarily related to non-duty related 
compulsions, his home and place of work being destroyed by 
Hurricane Andrew, and marital discord.” There is no evidence in 
the record to show particular combat stressors as cause of the 
member’s PTSD, and his stated stressors do not meet the criteria 
for combat relation due to performance of duties while engaged 
in hazardous service. 

 

A complete copy of the AFPC/DPSDD evaluation is at Exhibit C. 

 

________________________________________________________________ 

 

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: 

 

Counsel responds that although the DVA determination is not 
dispositive, it is evidence of the combat related nature of the 
PTSD in this case and must be considered along with all other 
evidence in reaching a decision. Proof of causal connection 
between diagnosed PTSD and specific events is no longer the law. 
The applicant’s PTSD was derived from missions during combat 
operations as previously described (Exhibit D). 

 

________________________________________________________________ 

 

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. After 


careful consideration of applicant's request and the available 
evidence of record, we find insufficient evidence of error or 
injustice to warrant corrective action. DVA determinations are 
not made under Title 10 definitions or guidelines and therefore 
are not applicable to service determinations. Under Title 10, 
there must be a definitive, documented, causal relationship 
between the hazardous service and the resulting disability. The 
applicant’s IPEB recommended placement on the TDRL due to his 
obsessive compulsive disorder which existed prior to service 
with service aggravation, and that his disability was not combat 
related. The applicant concurred with this finding, did not ask 
to appear before the formal PEB, and did not submit a rebuttal. 
Therefore, we agree with the opinion and recommendation of the 
OPR and adopt their rationale as the basis for our conclusion 
the applicant has not been the victim of an error or injustice. 
In view of the above, and in the absence of evidence to the 
contrary, we find no basis upon which to recommend favorable 
consideration of the applicant's request. 

 

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 issues involved. 
Therefore, the request for a hearing is not favorably 
considered. 

 

________________________________________________________________ 

 

THE BOARD DETERMINES THAT: 

 

The applicant be notified the evidence presented did not 
demonstrate the existence of material error or injustice; the 
application was denied without a personal appearance; and 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-2011-02867 in Executive Session on 22 March 12, under the 
provisions of AFI 36-2603: 

 

 , Vice Chair 

 , Member 

 , Member 

 


 

The following documentary evidence pertaining to AFBCMR Docket 
Number BC-2011-02867 was considered: 

 

 Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 25 Jul 11, w/atchs. 

 Exhibit B. Applicant's Master Personnel Records. 

 Exhibit C. Letter, AFPC/DPSDD, dated 21 Dec 11. 

 Exhibit D. Letter, Counsel, dated 30 Jan 2012. 

 

 

 

 

 

 Panel Chair