ADDENDUM TO
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF:	DOCKET NUMBER:  BC-2004-03786
		INDEX CODE:  108.07
		COUNSEL:  NONE
		HEARING DESIRED:  YES

MANDATORY CASE COMPLETION DATE: 18 Jul 07

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

His service-connected medical conditions, limited motion in the lumbar and cervical spine and limited motion of the arms, be assessed as combat related in order to qualify for compensation under the Combat Related Special Compensation (CRSC) Act.

_________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

On 12 Jan 06, the Board considered and denied applicant's request that his service-connected prostate gland condition be assessed as combat related as due to exposure to Agent Orange.  For an accounting of the facts and circumstances surrounding the applicant’s request and the rationale of the earlier decision by the Board, see the Record of Proceedings at Exhibit F.

In his most recent submission, applicant now requests his limited motion in the lumbar and cervical spine and limited motion of the arms be assessed as combat related.  Applicant provided numerous statements in which he contends, amongst other things, that his conditions are the result of an automobile accident, heavy lifting while performing his food service duties and lifting while on detail unloading aircraft.  He contends that because of racial issues he was denied a retirement physical and had he been given one his injuries would have been documented.  In support of his request applicant provided documentation associated with his CRSC appeal.  His complete submissions, with attachments, are at Exhibit G.

_________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

AFPC/DPPD recommends denial.  DPPD states while military service can be stressful, chronic conditions developed through the performance of normal service are not usually found to be combat related.  To approve CRSC, clear documentation must be provided which links the condition to a combat related factor rather than to the individual's physical make-up or some other routine cause.  Since he was injured in an automobile accident, these injuries are not considered combat related.  For injuries from a vehicle accident to be considered combat related, a military vehicle (classified as an instrumentality of war) must have been the cause of the accident.  

The DPPD evaluation is at Exhibit H.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

In his response to the Air Force evaluation, applicant provided several statements in which he reiterates contentions previously made.  His complete responses, with attachments are at Exhibit I.

_________________________________________________________________

THE BOARD CONCLUDES THAT:

1.  Insufficient relevant evidence has been presented to demonstrate the existence of error or injustice.  After a review of the available evidence of record, it is our opinion that the additional service-connected medical conditions the applicant believes are combat-related were 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, do not qualify for compensation under the CRSC Act.  We again 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.

2.  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-2004-03786 in Executive Session on 28 Apr 06, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603:

The following documentary evidence was considered:

    Exhibit F.  Record of Proceedings, dated 12 Jan 06, W/Exhibits.
    Exhibit G.  Letter, Applicant, dated 17 Jan 06, w/atchs.
    Exhibit H.  Letter, AFPC/DPPD, dated 23 Feb 06.
    Exhibit I.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 2 Mar 06.
    Exhibit J.  Letter, Applicant, dated 8 Mar 06, w/atchs.