RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF:	DOCKET NUMBER:  BC-2007-00904
		INDEX CODE:  108.07
		COUNSEL:  NONE
		HEARING DESIRED:  NO

MANDATORY CASE COMPLETION DATE:  25 SEPTEMBER 2008

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

His Department of Veterans Administration (DVA) medical records be changed from "Fell from truck and twisted knee" to "Thrown from US Army Weapons Carrier (WC) when driver braked suddenly and I fell on my right leg severely injuring my right knee." so he can be assessed as combat related in order to qualify for compensation under the Combat Related Special Compensation (CRSC) Act.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

He was taken to the hospital by the US Army ambulance.  He believes the medical statement/entry was probably made during his admission to the hospital but does not accurately state in detail what happened or the type of vehicle it was.  His admission was delayed due to the distance covered after the injury and third party comments.  The statement as it is does not qualify him for combat related compensation.

In support of his request, applicant provided documentation associated with his CRSC application.  

His complete submission, with attachments, is at Exhibit A.

_________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

On 1 November 1973, the applicant retired from the Air Force in the grade of chief master sergeant, after serving 28 years, 7 months and 13 days on active duty.  

Available DVA records reflect a combined compensable rating of 40% for his service-connected conditions.

He initially applied for CRSC for his knee prosthesis (right knee) on 20 October 2005; however, it was disapproved on 22 December 2005.  He provided additional information and was again disapproved 14 March 2007 because evidence was not provided to confirm his disability was the direct result of armed conflict, hazardous service, instrumentality of war, or simulating war.

_________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

AFPC/DPPD recommends denial.  DPPD provides a review of the applicant’s medical records and notes he did sustain an injury falling from a truck on 21 October 1943.  However, there is no evidence to indicate the vehicle involved is approvable under the CRSC "instrumentality of war" criteria.  The affidavit provided by the applicant cites a "baggage truck" and the medical documents simply mention a fall from a "truck".  Additionally, the scenario provided reflects no other possible combat-related events such as "jumping off the truck due to an incoming rocket attack."  In order for the disability to be eligible for compensation under the CRSC, the condition must meet the rigorous standards established for combat-related disabilities and not merely have a service connection.  While his condition meets the DVA requirements for service-connected compensation, the evidence does not support additional compensation under CRSC. Incidentally, if the DVA were to change the medical document to reflect "thrown from US army weapons carrier when driver braked suddenly" his condition would still not be eligible for CRSC.  The vehicle was being used to transport personnel and baggage at the time; it was not being used for its intended military purpose as a weapons carrier. DPPD states this condition does not meet the mandatory criteria for compensation under the CRSC program.

The DPPD evaluation is at Exhibit C.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

The applicant responded stating he feels there is a sense of bias in the semantics used in the denial of his application.  He states his knee joint was replaced by a civilian orthopedic surgeon.  The decision to operate focused on a lifetime of pain, frequent immobility and needing shots of cortisone to ease the discomfort.  In addition, he states a weapons carrier is defined as a general-purpose truck, or ambulance or command car.  Moving personnel, along with supplies and equipment was a prime consideration in the design of the vehicle.  All were considered to be military combat vehicles.  The illustration of the weapons carrier submitted was not to identify the type of vehicle from which he was thrown; he emphasized he did not fall.  The vehicle that caused his injuries was a weapons carrier being used for its intended purpose, (moving personnel and equipment to complete a combat related mission).  In addition, the applicant contacted Aberdeen Proving Grounds Museum and they did not have a field manual on the WC51.  Fort Carson and Peterson Field transportation offices confirmed a weapons carrier is considered a truck.  He asked who authored the definition instrumentality of war, he cannot find any source.  The applicant provided additional information on the B-26 Marauder Medium Bomber, the WC-51 and medical documentation.

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.  The applicant is requesting his medical records be corrected to reflect that his right knee condition was the result of a combat-related factor.  Based upon a review of the available evidence of record and the documentation provided in support of his appeal, we do not find evidence that justifies insertion of the requested statement.  Therefore, approval of that portion of his request is not warranted.  In addition, the available evidence of record does not support a finding that the service-connected medical condition the applicant believes is combat-related was 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 this application in Executive Session on 2 November 2007, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603:

				XXXXXXXXXX, Chair
				XXXXXXXXXX, Member
				XXXXXXXXXX, Member

The following documentary evidence pertaining to AFBCMR Docket Number BC-2007-00904 was considered:

    Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 21 March 2007, w/atchs.
    Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
    Exhibit C.  Letter, AFPC/DPPD, dated 3 July 2007.
    Exhibit D.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 13 July 2007.
    Exhibit E.  Letter, Applicant, dated 5 August 2007, w/atchs.

                                   XXXXXXXXXX
                                   Chair