RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF:	DOCKET NUMBER:  BC-2004-00378
		INDEX CODE:  108.07
		COUNSEL:  NONE
XXXXXXX
		HEARING DESIRED:  NO
XXXXXXX

MANDATORY CASE COMPLETION DATE:  10 Aug 05

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

His service-connected medical condition, inflammation of sciatic nerve for lower and upper extremities, be assessed as combat related in order to qualify for compensation under the Combat-Related Special Compensation (CRSC) Act.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

As a nuclear weapons technician he participated in countless war games which involved his handling of nuclear weapons.  Since a nuclear weapon is a weapon of war, his medical condition should be considered combat related.

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

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

Applicant contracted his initial enlistment in the Regular Air Force on 1 October 1961.  He was progressively promoted to the grade of master sergeant.  He served as a nuclear weapons technician, munitions systems technician, and a general accounting specialist.  He voluntarily retired from the Air Force on 1 November 1981, having served 24 years, 2 months, and 11 days on active duty.

His CRSC application was disapproved on 15 October 2003, based on the fact that his service-connected medical condition was determined not to be combat related.

_________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

AFPC/DPPD recommends denial and states, in part, that the fact a member may have incurred a medical condition during a period of war, or while participating in combat operation/training exercises is not sufficient evidence to support a combat-related determination.  Military records must show a definite causal relationship between the armed conflict and the medical conditions.  Applicant’s military records fail to show a combat-related connection/hazardous service or presumptive of toxic chemicals for his disabilities.

The AFPC/DPPD evaluation is at Exhibit C.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

Although he has never been in actual combat, the law states that his disability could be caused by participation in war games or by an instrumentality of war and still qualify for CRSC compensation.  As a nuclear weapons technician, he was required to participate in war games.  Further a nuclear weapon meets the criteria to be classified as an instrumentality of war.

In further support of the appeal, applicant submits a statement from a civilian physician indicating that applicant’s medical problems may be directly related to his exposure to metals and aliphatic chemicals while on active duty.

Applicant’s complete response, with attachment, 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, it is our opinion that the service-connected medical condition the applicant believes is combat related was not incurred as the direct result of armed conflict, while engaged in hazardous service, in the performance of duty under conditions simulating war, through an instrumentality of war, or presumptive of toxic chemicals, and therefore, 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-2004-00378 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 2 Feb 04, w/atchs.
    Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
    Exhibit C.  Letter, AFPC/DPPD, dated 28 Apr 04.
    Exhibit D.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 7 May 04.
    Exhibit E.  Letter, Applicant, dated 17 May 04, w/atch.

                                   
                                   Chair