RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF:	DOCKET NUMBER:  BC-2004-00441
		INDEX CODE:  108.07
		COUNSEL:  NONE

		HEARING DESIRED:  Not Indicated

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

His service-connected medical condition, post traumatic stress disorder (PTSD), be assessed as combat related in order to qualify for compensation under the Combat Related Special Compensation (CRSC) Act.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

Applicant makes no contentions.  In support of his request, applicant provided documentation extracted from his medical records and a copy of his CRSC denial letter.  His complete submission, with attachments, is at Exhibit A.

_________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

Applicant contracted his initial enlistment in the Regular Air Force on 16 Aug 73.  He was progressively promoted to the grade of staff sergeant, having assumed that grade effective and with a date of rank of 1 Apr 83.  He served as a Services Supervisor and a Vehicle Operations Dispatcher.  He voluntary retired from the Air Force on 31 Aug 93, having served 20 years and 15 days on active duty.

Current Department of Veterans Affairs (DVA) records reflect a combined compensable rating of 90% for his unfitting conditions.  

His CRSC application was disapproved on 29 Jan 04 based upon the fact that his service-connected medical condition was determined not to be combat-related.

_________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

AFPC/DPPD recommends denial.  DPPD states his records no not reflect that he was treated for any type of anxiety of depressive disorders.  He claims his PTSD is due to two experiences he encountered, one being that he came across a security guard who had shot himself and the second was that he saw an Airman struck and killed by an extended antenna.  There are inconsistencies in the reporting of his experiences.  One report states the applicant called for emergency intervention in the security guard incident and the other states he did not see the body but was shaken by all the blood.  The report indicates he had nightmares and intrusive thoughts but did not seek a mental health evaluation due to fear of negative repercussions and because he was undergoing a divorce and had financial problems.  His civilian physician states that making the assumption the events occurred in the manner in which the applicant claims then it is assumable that he has developed PTSD.  The preponderance of evidence made available does not show any record of the incidents he claimed.  The DVA examination revealed that even though he managed to complete two master's degrees, he has multiple symptoms including depression, dysthymic disorder, and personality disorder and assuming the trauma occurred in the manner he claims, he meets the criteria for PTSD.  Unfortunately none of the documentation submitted provides any specific information regarding the circumstances of the events.  According to his records, he denies hallucinations, delusions, paranoia, or suicidal ideation, though he is having a difficult time finishing his present schooling, and dealing with the loss OF different relatives.  His records do not show a combat related/hazardous service connection for his PTSD.  The DPPD evaluation is at Exhibit C.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

Applicant states he did not see the body of the security guard but did see the body of the other airman wrapped up in a sheet at the clinic.  He has no control over what the psychologists put in his report and if they omit anything it is not his fault.  During his career people were being discharged for seeing psychologists and he feared for his career and kept silent.  He has lost numerous relatives since the 1970's and has endured a painful divorce in which his former spouse's writing of bad checks almost got him kicked out of the Air Force.  His PTSD is the result of two tragedies he saw in the military that he kept to himself because he feared if he spoke he would be discharged.  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, 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, or through an instrumentality of war, 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-2004-00441 in Executive Session on 6 Apr 05, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603:

The following documentary evidence was considered:

    Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 6 Feb 04, w/atchs.
    Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
    Exhibit C.  Letter, AFPC/DPPD, dated 26 Apr 04.
    Exhibit D.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 7 May 04.
    Exhibit E.  Letter, Applicant, dated 11 May 04, w/atchs.

                                   Chair