RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2010-00337 XXXXXXX COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO ________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: His AF Form 356, Findings and Recommended Disposition of United States Air Force (USAF) Physical Evaluation Board, dated 31 Jan 06, be changed to reflect his injuries were a direct result of enemy action …, and that he be awarded benefits under the Combat-Related Special Compensation (CRSC) Program. ________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: His disability, chronic back pain, status post L4-5 discectomy and fusion, on the AF Form 356, dated 31 Jan 06, Item 10C, Disability was the direct result of armed conflict or was caused by an instrumentality of war and incurred in the line of duty during a period of war, should reflect “yes,” because his disability was clearly caused by multiple “instruments of war.” Item 10D, Disability was the direct result of a combat related injury,” should reflect that his disability was the result of a combat related injury, an injury that was continuously misdiagnosed by military doctors and ignored by commanders. Item 15, Remarks, while it indicates that his contention was that his injury was the direct result of “armed conflict,” it would be more correctly reflected as combat related. He was not properly prepared for the Physical Evaluation Board (PEB) process by his PEB Liaison Officer (PEBLO). Also, he attributes not catching the error at the time due to being on pain medications, including prescribes narcotics, for some time. During the Formal PEB, he was distracted and pre-occupied because of the improper handling of his case by the PEBLO and his commanders. In support of his appeal, the applicant provides a personal statement; a copy of the Informal Physical Evaluation Board (IPEB) findings, and extracts from his service medical records (SMR) and the Department of Veterans Affairs (DVA) records. The applicant’s complete submission, with attachments, is at Exhibit A. ________________________________________________________________ STATEMENT OF FACTS: The applicant was permanently retired for disability effective 21 March 2006, with a disability rating of 40 percent. He completed 22 years, 1 month, and 18 days of active and inactive service for retirement. ________________________________________________________________ AIR FORCE EVALUATION: AFPC/DPSDC recommends denial of applicant’s request for CRSC benefits for Degenerative Arthritis of the Spine (lumbar and cervical) and Non-Hodgkin’s Lymphoma stating, in part, that these conditions did not meet the mandatory criteria for compensation under the CRSC program as outlined under the provisions of Title 10 USC, Chapter 71, Section 1413a. The fact that a member incurred a disability in an area of armed conflict, while participating in combat operations or during a period of hazardous service is not sufficient by itself to support combat-related determination. There must be a definite, documented, causal relationship between the armed conflict and the resulting disability. Even if the PEB had found the applicant’s back condition to be combat-related he would not have been approved for CRSC. Their process and standards of determinations are governed under a different directive than determines a member’s ability to remain fit for active duty. Their decision does not automatically qualify a disability as combat-related under the CRSC program. The CRSC program is designed to provide compensation for combat- related injuries and their standards are much more rigorous when determining disabilities under current criteria. It was never the intent to imply that the PEB findings prevented the applicant from being approved for his conditions. The complete AFPC/DPSDC evaluation, with attachments, is at Exhibit C. AFPC/DPSD recommends denial, stating, in part, the preponderance of evidence reflects that no error or injustice occurred during the disability process or at the time of retirement. The Board reviewed the narrative regarding the applicant’s medical condition of chronic back pain, status post L-45 discectomy and fusion. They noted, “In regard to the member’s contention that his injury was a direct result of armed conflict, …, the fact that a member may have incurred a disability during a period of war or in an area of armed conflict, or while participating in combat operations is not sufficient proof to establish an injury is a direct result of armed conflict. There must be a definite causal relationship between the armed conflict and the resulting unfitting disability. They found no such causal relationship in this case.” The complete AFPC/DPSD evaluation is at Exhibit D. ________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: The applicant provides a response to clarify his request and to further explain the reasons he believes the AF Form 356 should be changed. He is not requesting a readdress of his CRSC claim. He believes the Non-Hodgkin’s Lymphoma was likely caused by the various “burn pits” in Iraq and Afghanistan, smoke which he flew through on almost every occasion. He has provided limited information to document his claim because the documents he need are still “classified” and he is unable to obtain them. He is only requesting the designation on the spinal injury to be changed to “combat-related,” because he believes the NHL will be put on the DVA’s “presumptive” list just as Agent Orange was for the Vietnam Veterans. Had his spinal injuries been properly diagnosed initially this would not be an issue. The applicant’s complete response 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 timely filed. 3. Insufficient relevant evidence has been presented to demonstrate the existence of error or injustice. We took notice of the applicant's complete submission in judging the merits of the case; however, we agree with the opinion and recommendation of the Air Force offices of primary responsibility and adopt their rationale as the basis for our conclusion the applicant has not been the victim of an error or injustice. Therefore, in the absence of evidence to the contrary, we find no basis to recommend granting the relief sought in this application. ________________________________________________________________ The following members of the Board considered Docket Number BC- 2010-00337 in Executive Session on 3 March 2011, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603: The following documentary evidence was considered: Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 18 Jan 10, w/atchs. Exhibit B. Applicant's Master Personnel Records. Exhibit C. Letter, AFPC/DPSDC, dated 23 Feb 10, w/atch. Exhibit D. Letter, AFPC/DPSD, dated 11 Mar 10. Exhibit E. Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 14 May 10. Exhibit F. Letter, Applicant, dated 28 May 10.