RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF:	DOCKET NUMBER:  BC-2004-01771
		INDEX CODE:  108.07
		COUNSEL:  NONE
		HEARING DESIRED:  YES

MANDATORY CASE COMPLETION DATE:  7 Dec 05

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

His service-connected medical condition, disability of brain or spinal cord, be assessed as combat related in order to qualify for compensation under the Combat Related Special Compensation (CRSC) Act.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

His injuries were incurred while conducting missile recovery activities, during a combat-related exercise.  In conducting an Atlas Missile recovery he had to go into a Mechanical and Electrical room.  After determining that a propellant valve had failed to actuate he took the required action to manually cycle the valve.  The high-pressure valve opened creating an unanticipated extremely loud noise, which shocked both himself and his technician.  The technician reacted by swinging his shoulder and arm into the applicant, pushing him into a group of pipes and other metal equipment, resulting in severe pain in his back.  

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

_________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

Applicant was appointed a second lieutenant, Reserve of the Air Force and was voluntarily ordered to extended active duty on 26 Aug 60.  He was progressively promoted to the grade of colonel, having assumed that grade effective and with a date of rank of 1 Apr 79.  He served as a Space Systems Staff Officer, Scientific Analyst, and an Aeronautical Engineer.  On 30 Sep 81, he voluntarily retired for years of service.  He served 21 years, 1 month, and 5 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 20 Apr 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 a review of his service and DVA medical records show his brain or spinal cord condition is not combat related.  There is no mention of a back injury in 1964.  His records do reveal he has an annotation dated 5 Dec 77 stating he has "a history of two years of spastic paraparesis."  A doctor's report dated 25 Mar 77, states he injured his back at the age of 14 when he "jumped a distance of two feet backward from a flag pole, landing on feet.  Sudden pain in the back about the belt line."  The DPPD evaluation is at Exhibit C.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

Applicant reiterates his contentions he has established the exercise mandated by SAC regulations to verify crew capabilities and to verify missile launch capability clearly meets the criteria as under conditions simulating war.  He did not even know the incident had caused his disability until 1993.  The injury resulted in damage to a neural control center that an x-ray could not have revealed. Air Force and private neurologists indicated he had either MS or MD for many years and had prescribed medication to address the incorrect diagnosis.  Ten years after his injury to his back at age 14 he entered the Air Force in perfect condition, or he would not have qualified for entry.  His complete response is at Exhibit E.

_________________________________________________________________

ADDITIONAL AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

The BCMR Medical Consultant recommends denial.  The Medical Consultant states the applicant indicates his incident occurred in 1964.  There are no entries in his service medical record back to 1960 for complaint of back pain or back injury.  On 16 Sep 71, he presented to the clinic for a pulled dorsal spine.  On 8 May 74 he presented for mid lower back pain aggravated by soccer practice.  There are no other service medical record entries preceding the time of onset of his spastic paraparesis that would suggest traumatic etiology.  There is no documentary evidence confirming he sustained a clinically significant back injury during conditions simulating war.  There is no medical evidence of any significant spinal injury or medical evidence in the record that links his spinal condition to a traumatic injury.  
The Medical Consultant Evaluation is at Exhibit F.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF ADDITIONAL AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

A copy of the additional Air Force evaluation was forwarded to the applicant on 13 Apr 04 for review and comment within 30 days.  As of this date, this office has received no response.

_________________________________________________________________

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 opinions and recommendations of the Air Force offices of primary responsibility and adopt their 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.

4.  The applicant's case is adequately documented and it has not been shown that a personal appearance with or without counsel will materially add to our understanding of the issue involved.  Therefore, the request for a hearing is not favorably considered.

_________________________________________________________________

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-2004-01771 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 21 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, Applicant, not dated.
    Exhibit F.  Letter, BCMR Medical Consultant, dated 8 Apr 05.
    Exhibit G.  Letter, SAF/MRBC, dated 13 Apr 05.