RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF:DOCKET NUMBER:  BC-2013-01930
		
		COUNSEL:  NONE

		HEARING DESIRED: NOT INDICATED

________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

His service connected phobia condition (fear of flying) incurred 
due to an aircraft crash be reconsidered under the Combat 
Related Special Compensation (CRSC) program.

________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

He was on board an aircraft that crashed on 27 November 1970.  
The aircraft was operated by the Military Airlift Command and 
was scheduled to fly from McCord Air Force Base, Washington to 
Vietnam.

In support of his appeal, the applicant provides his CRSC 
response and the Aircraft Accident Report.

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

________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

The applicant was medially retired on 20 January 1978 in the 
grade of technical sergeant with a 30 percent compensable 
physical disability rating.

The remaining relevant facts pertaining to this application are 
contained in the letter prepared by the appropriate office of 
the Air Force which is at Exhibit B. 

________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

AFPC/DPFDC recommends denial.  The applicant submitted a claim 
for CRSC on 7 November 2005; however, at that time he did not 
meet the minimum eligibility requirement for service time as he 
was medically retired with only 16 years of service.  With the 
enactment of the 2008 National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA), 
medically retired members became eligible for CRSC and the 
applicant’s phobia condition was reviewed.  His claim was 
disapproved on 2 September 2008.  

The applicant provided additional information on 9 April 2012.  
At that time, he was disapproved for his phobia condition, but 
approved for the Agent Orange conditions of diabetes mellitus 
and inflammation of popliteal nerves at a combined rating of 
40 percent.  He requested reconsideration of his phobia 
condition but the request was denied on 18 December 2012 and 
20 March 2013.  There was no evidence provided to confirm this 
disability was the direct result of armed conflict, hazardous 
service, instrumentality of war, or simulating war.

The CRSC program was established to provide compensation to 
certain retirees with combat-related disabilities under Title 
10 U.S.C, Section 1413a.  If the veteran does not satisfy the 
preliminary CRSC criteria, no further consideration is required 
and the claim is denied.  If the veteran satisfies the 
preliminary CRSC criteria, the claim is reviewed for combat-
related determination.  

The DVA 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 the 
disability.  The military departments will determine whether a 
disability is combat-related under armed conflict, hazardous 
service, simulating war or instrumentality of war, using the 
definitions and criteria set forth.  

The applicant stated while in transit from Alaska to Vietnam, 
the aircraft he was on crashed, killing 47 people.  Supporting 
documentation reflects the aircraft involved was operated by 
Capitol International Airways.  The investigation disclosed the 
aircraft failed to become airborne during the takeoff run and 
overran the end of the runway.  The Medical Board Report 
indicates the crash may have exacerbated earlier conflicts which 
may have been related to his father’s death in a jeep accident.

The CRSC Board concedes the connection from the aircraft crash 
to the applicant’s phobia condition.  However, there is no 
indication of a combat-related cause allowing approval of this 
condition.  The documentation reflects the aircraft involved was 
a civilian aircraft, not a military aircraft.  While the 
aircraft was under contract to transport military personnel to 
an overseas location that does not change the fact that it was 
not a military aircraft.  Civilian aircraft are not considered 
an Instrumentality of war and transportation on a civilian 
aircraft is not unique to the military or combat.  

The Army and Navy/Marine CRSC counterparts are in agreement that 
a civilian aircraft crash, under these circumstances, would not 
meet CRSC criteria.  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, Section 1413a.  

The complete DPFDC evaluation is at Exhibit C.

________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

A copy of the Air Force evaluation was forwarded to the 
applicant on 5 August 2013, for review and comment within 
30 days (Exhibit D).  As of this date, this office has received 
no response.

________________________________________________________________

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 error or injustice.  After a 
thorough review of the applicant’s submission and the evidence 
of record, we do not find the applicant’s service-connected 
medical condition was the direct result of an armed conflict, 
while engaged in hazardous service, in the performance of duty 
under conditions simulating war, or through an instrumentality 
of war.  As such, we agree with the Air Force office of primary 
responisibility and adopt their rationale as the basis for our 
conclusion that the applicant’s condition does not meet the 
mandatory criteria for compensation under the CRSC program.  
Therefore, in the absence of evidence to the contrary, we find 
no basis to recommend granting the relief sought in this 
application.

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 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 AFBCMR Docket 
Number BC-2013-01930 in Executive Session on 16 January 2014, 
under the provisions of AFI 36-2603:

The following documentary evidence was considered:

    Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 26 Mar 13, w/atchs.
    Exhibit B.  Applicant’s Master Personnel Records.
    Exhibit C.  Letter, AFPC/DPFDC, dated 11 Jul 13.
    Exhibit D.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 5 Aug 13.