RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF:	DOCKET NUMBER:  BC-2007-02652
		INDEX CODE:  108.07
		COUNSEL:  NONE
		HEARING DESIRED:  NO

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

His line of duty (LOD) determination be corrected so he can qualify for Combat Related Specialty Compensation (CRSC).

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

His LOD does not state a forklift damaged the ramp area and caused the load to jam or that he was in a hostile area in combat conditions.  His records should reflect how the ramp was damaged and how his injuries to his back and knees occurred.  These missing facts are preventing him from receiving CRSC.

In support of his request, the applicant submits a personal statement, documentation extracted from his medical records and documentation associated with his LOD determination.  

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

_________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

On 14 July 1984, the applicant enlisted in the Air National Guard for three years.

According to NGB Form 348, Line of Duty Determination, an administrative LOD was initiated 22 January 1992.  It was determined his knee and back injuries occurred while handling cargo in the rear of an aircraft.  On 21 February 1992, the LOD determination was approved.

On 18 August 2006, the applicant was transferred to the retired Reserve in the grade of master sergeant.

_________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

NGB/SGPD recommends denial.  SGPD states both of the injuries were included on the LOD determination and the approval authority deemed both conditions as LOD.  SGPA will not endorse the applicant's request to add to his LOD determination to reflect he was injured in a combat zone.  Only the known eyewitnesses and his chain of command can attest to whether his injuries were suffered during combat conditions.  

The complete SGPD evaluation is at Exhibit C.

The NGB/A1PS recommends denial.  A1PS states according to the subject matter expert (SME), the LOD determination was done correctly.  Both injuries were included on the LOD determination and the approval authority deemed both conditions as LOD.

The complete A1PS evaluation is at Exhibit D.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

The applicant responded stating his injuries occurred during Desert Storm while delivering bullets and minesweepers in and out of the combat zone.  This was not an exercise but was during a war in a combat zone.  He provided letters from eyewitnesses who were with him when he first injured his back and re-injured his left knee.  

His complete response, with attachments, is at Exhibit F.

_________________________________________________________________

THE BOARD CONCLUDES THAT:

1.  The applicant has exhausted all remedies provided by existing law or regulations.

2.  The application was not timely filed; however, it is in the interest of justice to excuse the failure to timely file.

3.  Insufficient relevant evidence has been presented to demonstrate the existence of error or injustice.  After a thorough review of the evidence of record along with the applicant's complete submission, we are not persuaded by his uncorroborated assertions that the LOD determination is erroneous or unjust.  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 he 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 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 12 May 2008, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603:

The following documentary evidence was considered:

    Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 13 August 2007, w/atchs.
    Exhibit B.  Available Personnel Records.
    Exhibit C.  Letter, NGB/A1PO, dated 14 February 2008.
    Exhibit D.  Letter, NGB/A1PS, dated 25 February 2008.
    Exhibit E.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 29 February 2008.
    Exhibit F.  Letter, Applicant, dated 5 March 2008.