RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF:	DOCKET NUMBER:  BC-2004-01622
		INDEX CODE:  108.07
		COUNSEL:  XXX
		HEARING DESIRED:  NO

MANDATORY CASE COMPLETION DATE:  23 Nov 05

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

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

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

His macular degeneration is applicable to both combat and non-combat flying due to exposure to ultra violent rays of the sun during all day missions.  The use of inertial and satellite navigation systems did not exist in the time he was piloting aircraft.  He was often required to fly on test flights to take multiple sun bearings to compare with compass headings.  During the majority of his missions he was vulnerable to ultra violet rays from the sun and more so when making sun observations.  His eye exams while in the Air Force were limited to wall charts. 

In support of his request, applicant provided documentation associated with his CRSC application, a personal statement, an Afterburner excerpt, and documentation associated with his request for Congressional inquiry.  His complete submission, with attachments, is at Exhibit A.

_________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

Applicant was commissioned in the Air Force on 10 Jun 44.  He was progressively promoted to the grade of lieutenant colonel, having assumed that grade effective and with a date of rank of 14 Mar 62.  On 31 Jul 69, he voluntarily retired for years of service.  He served 26 years, 6 months, and 1 day on active duty.

Available Department of Veterans Affairs (DVA) records reflect a combined compensable rating of 70% for his unfitting conditions.  

His CRSC application was disapproved on 18 Nov 04 based upon the fact that his service-connected medical conditions were determined not to be combat-related.  His shoulder prosthesis was subsequently approved for CRSC compensation, rated at 50%.

_________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

AFPC/DPPD recommends denial.  DPPD states a review of his service and DVA medical records show his impaired vision is not combat related.  Determination for CRSC eligibility can only be made on the basis of objective documentary information in the records as distinguished from personal opinions or accounts.  His records do not show, while in service, a combat-related event or events that were the direct cause of his disability.  

The DPPD evaluation is at Exhibit C.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

Applicant states the macular degeneration of his eyes was determined by several eye doctors and was confirmed by a DVA eye doctor as due to years of altitude flying and exposure to various rays.  He has never smoked nor is his disability hereditary.  None of his siblings has had macular degeneration.  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-2004-01622 in Executive Session on 1 Jun 05, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603:

The following documentary evidence was considered:

    Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 10 May 04, w/atchs.
    Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
    Exhibit C.  Letter, AFPC/DPPD, dated 28 Jun 04.
    Exhibit D.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 9 Jul 04.
    Exhibit E.  Letter, XXX, dated 20 Jul 04, w/atchs.