RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF:	DOCKET NUMBER:  BC-2004-00359
		INDEX CODE:  108.07
		COUNSEL:  
XXXXXXX
		HEARING DESIRED:  NO
XXXXXXX

MANDATORY CASE COMPLETION DATE:  8 Aug 05

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

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

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

His back injury occurred aboard the U.S.S. Toledo during a “ship-to-shore” bombardment off the coast of Wonson, Korea.  While attempting to retrieve a “hot” 20mm gun barrel next to the 5” gun mount on the ship’s portside, he was hit in the back by an ejected 5” shell casing.  When general quarters were secured, he reported to sickbay for treatment.  Due to his exposure to constant naval gunfire aboard ship, he was awarded a 10% disability for tinnitus from the Veterans Administration (VA).

His complete submission, with attachments, is at Exhibit A.
_________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

Applicant served in the US Marine Corps from 26 November 1946 to 25 November 1951.  Applicant contracted his initial enlistment in the Regular Air Force on 17 September 1952.  He was progressively promoted to the grade of technical sergeant.  While in the Air Force, he served as an Air Policeman and Administrative Supervisor.  His Airman Military Record, AF Form 7, reflects his combat record as the Communist China Spring Offensive (22 Apr 51 - 8 Jul 51) and the United Nations Summer-Fall Offensive (9 Jul 51 - 27 Nov 51).  He voluntarily retired from the Air Force on 1 July 1974, having served 26 years, 9 months, and 14 days on active duty.

Current Department of Veterans Affairs (DVA) records reflect a combined compensable rating of 80% for his unfitting conditions.  

His CRSC application was disapproved on 8 January 2004, based on the fact that his medical records indicate his back injury was caused by lifting heavy items.  Although his hearing impairment is combat related, the 0% rating does not qualify for CRSC.

_________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

AFPC/DPPD recommends denial and states, in part, that although his service-connected medical conditions exceed the required 10%, the conditions were determined to be non-combat related, except for his impaired hearing which is rated at 0%.

The AFPC/DPPD evaluation is at Exhibit C.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

The evaluation only reflects the re-occurrence of the injury at Sembach, Germany.  In further support of his appeal, applicant submits a copy of a 10 August 1951 Medical History entry indicating that on that date he underwent an x-ray at Yokosuka, Japan.

Applicant’s complete responses, with attachments, are 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, it is our opinion that the service-connected medical conditions the applicant believes are combat-related were not 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, do not qualify for compensation under the CRSC Act.  Although his impaired hearing is combat related, the 0% rating assigned to the condition does not qualify for compensation under the CRSC Act.  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 compelling 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 AFBCMR Docket Number BC-2004-00359 in Executive Session on 6 April 2005, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603:
The following documentary evidence was considered:

    Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 30 Jan 04, w/atchs.
    Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
    Exhibit C.  Letter, AFPC/DPPD, dated 22 Apr 04.
    Exhibit D.  Letters, SAF/MRBR, dated 7 May 04.
    Exhibit E.  Letters, Applicant, dated 12 & 18 May 04,
	           w/atchs.

                                   
                                   Chair