RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF:	DOCKET NUMBER:  BC-2004-00011
		INDEX CODE:  108.07
		COUNSEL:  NONE

		HEARING DESIRED:  YES

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

His service-connected medical conditions, spinal disc condition and gastric ulcer, be assessed as combat related in order to qualify for compensation under the Combat Related Special Compensation (CRSC) Act.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

It appears that all medical records pertaining to his injuries are no longer available and those who were witnesses are either dead or he has long lost contact with them.  All he can provide is his own statements and the statements of his son and former spouse.  He injured his back when he dove over and behind an aircraft revetment to avoid a crippled German buzz bomb, which hit and exploded 30 feet away from him.  He was placed on bed rest until the pain allowed him to return to duty.  When he returned from the TDY he did not report the incident to his medical clinic.  His back continued to give him intermittent problems for years requiring heat therapy, taping and bed rest.  While parachuting to recover a spy balloon he injured his back and was treated at the clinic for 7-10 days after his return to home base.  Episodes of pain and mobility problems became more frequent after this injury.  In most cases he treated the pains himself with heat pads and exercise, but there were time he had to go to sick call because of the pain.  A year or two later he was hospitalized and put in traction when the back pain became so unbearable he was unable to stand.  

While loading a 500-pound bomb, one of the bombs came loose from the bomb rack and fell on him knocking him down and coming to rest on his solar plexus.  This resulted in a small tear in his diaphragm and led to stomach problems.  This marked the beginning of his acid reflux problems.  On a training jump, just before touching down, a sudden gust of wind swung him so that he landed on the back of his head ending up in a doubled up position.  The pain in his solar plexus area was intense and he is sure, further aggravated the old diaphragm injury.  

In support of his request, applicant provided personal statements, a statement form his son and former spouse, and documentation extracted from his Department of Veterans Affairs and military records.  His complete submission, with attachments, is at Exhibit A.

_________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

Applicant served in the Army from 6 Jan 43 through 27 Feb 46.  He was appointed a second lieutenant, Reserve of the Air Force on 4 Dec 50.  He was progressively promoted to the grade of lieutenant colonel, having assumed that grade effective and with a date of rank of 12 Sep 67.  He was retired by reason of physical disability on 26 Mar 68.  He served 20 years, 1 month, and 22 days on active duty.

Current Department of Veterans Affairs (DVA) records reflect a combined compensable rating of 50% for his unfitting conditions.  

His CRSC application was approved on 2 Jan 04 for his urinary condition.  His request was disapproved for the requested conditions because of insufficient documentation.

_________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

AFPC/DPPD recommends denial.  DPPD states a review of his DVA records and personnel files shows that his conditions are not combat related.  His medical records were missing when he retired.  Without any specific medical documentation to support his claim, his conditions cannot be classified as combat related.  The DPPD evaluation is at Exhibit C.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

Applicant states that until recently he assumed there were sufficient records available to substantiate the causes of his back and hiatal hernia injuries.  Otherwise, applicant questions how could they have been designated as service connected.  He is in a real Catch 22 situation since it is recognized that his records are missing and his claim cannot be supported without them.  Applicant provided further details surrounding the aforementioned incidents resulting in his injuries and he provided details of his major medical treatments and hospitalizations.  He adds that his primary concern in this matter is to have his records accurately reflect the true cause of his injuries as either caused by armed conflict, hazardous service, and/or instrumentality of war.  His complete response, with attachments, 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 error or injustice.  After a thorough review of the available evidence of record, we find no evidence which would lead us to believe that the service-connected medical conditions the applicant 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.  Therefore, it is our determination that the conditions do not qualify for compensation under the CRSC Act.  We agree with the opinions and recommendations of the Air Force offices 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 documentary evidence to the contrary, we find no basis upon which to recommend granting the relief sought in this application.  If the applicant were to provide such evidence, we would be willing to reconsider his 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 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-2004-00011 in Executive Session on 23 Feb 05, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603:
The following documentary evidence was considered:

    Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 19 Apr 04, w/atchs.
    Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
    Exhibit C.  Letter, AFPC/DPPD, dated 18 Jun 04.
    Exhibit D.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 25 Jun 04.
    Exhibit E.  Letter, Applicant, dated 6 Jul 04, w/atchs.

                                   Chair