RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF:	DOCKET NUMBER:  BC-2005-00110
		INDEX CODE:  108.07
		COUNSEL:  NONE
		HEARING DESIRED:  NO

MANDATORY CASE COMPLETION DATE:  11 Jul 06

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

His service-connected medical conditions, cervical myelopathy and tinnitus, be assessed as combat related in order to qualify for compensation under the Combat Related Special Compensation (CRSC) Act.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

His injury was incurred while lifting a patient during a training exercise while serving as a combat medic.  His health records show his problems with is back and neck date back to the 1960's.  The problem was his neck all along.  Because diagnostic equipment was not available at the time doctors were unable to accurately determine his medical condition.  The problem worsened during a training exercise when he was attempting to subdue an individual acting the role of a mental patient.  The patient threw him up against a wall and then to the ground.  

His tinnitus is the result of his duties on the aircraft tarmac during exercises.  

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 served in the Regular Army from 26 Jan 61 to 28 Aug 64.  He contracted his initial enlistment in the Regular Air Force on 4 May 65.  He was progressively promoted to the grade of senior master sergeant, having assumed that grade effective and with a date of rank of 1 Sep 86.  He served as a First Sergeant and as a Medical Service Technician.  He voluntarily retired from the Air Force on 30 Apr 89, having served 28 years and 21 days on active duty.

Available Department of Veterans Affairs (DVA) records reflect a combined compensable rating of 80% for his unfitting conditions.  

His CRSC application was disapproved on 7 Oct 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 service medical records contain a review of his service and DVA medical records reveals a long history of neck pain with treatment noted as early as March 1967.  An entry dated 16 Sep 75, notes he was diagnosed with chronic cervical strain, four years prior to the incident that he claims caused his disability.  Injuries from routine activities, such as lifting equipment of patients, are not sufficient to be considered combat related, even when the event occurs while performing military duties of training.,  Evidence from the time of the alleged event does not substantiate his claim and the statement from his former commander was prepared after he contacted his Congressman, and the Congressman's staff contacted DPPD to determine what type of evidence would be needed to support approval of the application.  Accounts prepared many years after-the-fact are not considered as reliable as those prepared at the time of the event since memories may be obscured by time and perspective.  Based on the evidence provided, it appears his disability was the result of a chronic cervical condition that developed many years prior to the lifting incident.  His tinnitus is not eligible for compensation unless it was incidental to a combat related event or due to documented, continual, extensive exposure to combat related noise and the condition was shown to have manifested itself while in service.  Occasional exposure to aircraft noise is not sufficient to warrant compensation under existing program guidelines.

The DPPD evaluation is at Exhibit C.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

Applicant states that he did have a muscle strain during his career.  Some of that was trying to build his body up to the appropriate condition that would allow him to lift patients.  The injury occurred several years prior to the training exercise in question and he was returned to duty indicating he was fit for service.  Applicant reiterates his account of the incident he believes resulted in his disability and states that he believes the intent of the law is that if a person is injured while performing a task directly related to an exercise, that person falls into the range of the law that states if you are injured due to training exercises then it should be approved.  The DPPD statement that accounts prepared many years after-the-fact are not considered as reliable, is just wrong.  For medical personnel, quite often treatment was given during hall room visits meaning they would see doctors between patient visits and would be treated without medical records.  

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 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 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-2005-00110 in Executive Session on 4 Jan 06, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603:

	Chair
	Member
	Member

The following documentary evidence was considered:

    Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 4 Jan 05, w/atchs.
    Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
    Exhibit C.  Letter, AFPC/DPPD, dated 15 Apr 05.
    Exhibit D.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 22 Apr 05.
    Exhibit E.  Letter, Applicant, dated 27 Apr 05, w/atch.

                                   
                                   Chair