RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF:	DOCKET NUMBER:  BC-2004-00767
		INDEX CODE:  108.07
		COUNSEL:  NONE

		HEARING DESIRED:  NO

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

His service-connected medical condition, traumatic arthritis of his left foot, be assessed as combat related in order to qualify for compensation under the Combat Related Special Compensation (CRSC) Act.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

His condition is directly related to flying duties during the Gulf War in 1990 and should have been determined as combat related.  His left foot received blunt trauma during a strategic airlift mission directly supporting Operation DESERT SHIELD.  It was because of the criticality of the wartime mission that he elected to continue with the mission instead of seeking immediate medical care.  The injury occurred while he was helping offload cargo at a classified location.  Although pilots do not normally help in loading/offloading of cargo, minimizing ground time was of the essence.  While offloading one of the pallets his foot was jammed under a pallet.  He reported to the flight surgeon's office for treatment upon return to his home station.  This injury has led to ongoing foot pain and degeneration in the impacted joint.  His condition meets the criteria for CRSC as combat related and because it was incurred while engaged in hazardous service.

In support of his request, applicant provided a personal statement, his CRSC denial letter, and documents extracted from his medical and flight records.  His complete submission, with attachments, is at Exhibit A.
_________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

Applicant was appointed a second lieutenant, Reserve of the Air Force on 21 Mar 76 and was progressively promoted to the grade of colonel, having assumed that grade effective and with a date of rank of 1 Jan 95.  He served as an Airlift Pilot and in Planning and Programming.  On 31 Jul 98, he voluntarily retired for years of service.  He served 22 years, 4 months, and 10 days on active duty

Current Department of Veterans Affairs (DVA) records reflect a combined compensable rating of 60% for his unfitting conditions.  

His CRSC application was approved on 24 Feb 04 for his degenerative arthritis but his remaining conditions, benign growth of skin, arteriosclerotic heart disease, and traumatic arthritis were disapproved based upon the fact that the service-connected medical conditions were determined not to be combat-related.

_________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

AFPC/DPPD recommends denial.  DPPD states applicant submitted a medical entry that states "left foot injury during recent aircraft mission" with a diagnosis of "foot bruised, mild adema, pain specific to 2nd metatarsophalangeal joint" and "dislocation resolved."  Another medical entry dated 30 Jun 95 states he "stubbed 2nd toe left foot getting into airplane 2 1/2 years ago..."  The DVA granted service connection for "residuals of injury to left second toe, compatible with degenerative joint disease."  The DVA granted this disability stating "...pain started after the veteran injured the joint getting into an airplane while on active duty."  The fact that a member may have incurred a disability during a period of war or in an area of armed conflict is not sufficient to support a combat related determination.  There must be a definite causal relationship between the armed conflict and the resulting unfitting disability.  This injury is also not considered caused by hazardous service as cargo handling, a duty not normally associated with pilot duties, is not considered hazardous duty.  

The DPPD evaluation is at Exhibit C.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

Applicant states the definite causal relationship can be found in the fact that his injury would not have occurred if he was not a crewmember, performing official duties, during ongoing combat operations.  According to CRSC guidance, determination of combat relatedness, while engaged in hazardous service includes, but is not limited to, aerial flight, parachute duty, demolition duty, experimental duty, and diving duty.  A finding that a disability is the result of such hazardous service requires that the injury or disease be the direct result of actions taken in the performance of such service.  His injury occurred while he was a flight crewmember on a military combat mission in the theater of operations.  It is true that normally the aircraft commander/pilots do not assist in loading/unloading operations.  However, given that they were operating in a combat zone, in a high-threat situation, where minimizing ground time was essential, every available crewmember assisted in offloading the cargo.  His complete response 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 believe 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-2004-00767 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 3 Mar 04, w/atchs.
    Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
    Exhibit C.  Letter, AFPC/DPPD, dated 21 May 04.
    Exhibit D.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 28 May 04.
    Exhibit E.  Letter, Applicant, dated 7 Jun 04.