RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2010-03027 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: YES _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: 1. His service-connected medical condition of Anemia be assessed as combat-related in order to qualify for compensation under the Combat-Related Special Compensation (CRSC) Act. 2. He be authorized CRDP. _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: His record should be corrected to show he was stationed at the Air Force Base in Duluth Minnesota. At this location, he performed alert duties and would scramble to identify enemy aircraft flying into American airspace over the North Pole. In support of his request, the applicant provides copies of personal letters; his DD Form 214, Armed Forces of the United States Report of Transfer or Discharge; and a letter to his senator. The applicant’s complete submission, with attachments, is at Exhibit A. _________________________________________________________________ STATEMENT OF FACTS: On 29 April 1959, an Air Force Physical Evaluation Board (PEB) found the applicant unfit for duty due to Anemia and recommended he be placed on the Temporary Disability Retired Listed (TDRL) with a 60 percent disability rating in the grade of captain. The PEB concluded the applicant’s disability was not caused by an instrumentality of war nor was his disability incurred in combat. On 2 April 1964, the applicant was removed from the TDRL and permanently retired in the grade of captain with a disability rating of 70 percent. He served 6 years, 7 months and 26 days of active service for retirement. On 7 October 2009, the applicant applied for CRSC for Anemia. The applicant claimed his illness was incurred from the stress of flying missions. On 25 January 2010, the applicant’s claim was denied because there was no evidence to confirm his disability was the direct result of armed conflict, hazardous service, instrumentality of war, or simulating war. _________________________________________________________________ AIR FORCE EVALUATION: AFPC/DPSDC recommends denial. DPSDC states by law, determinations of whether a disability is combat-related will be based on the preponderance of available documentary information. All relevant documentary information is to be weighed in relation to known facts and circumstances, and determinations will be made on the basis of credible, objective documentary information in the records as distinguished from personal opinion, speculation, or conjecture. DPSDC states the applicant’s condition does not meet the mandatory criteria for compensation under the CRSC program as outlined under the provisions of Title 10, U.S.C., chapter 71, section 1413a. Additionally, in accordance with DD Form 2860, Claim for Combat-Related Special Compensation (CRSC), the fact that a member incurred a disability while participating in combat operations is not sufficient by itself to support a combat- related determination. There must be a definite, documented, causal relationship between the armed conflict and the resulting disability. After reviewing the applicant’s documentation, DPSDC was unable to identify a combat-related event as the cause of his disability. In the applicant’s original claim, he stated he was assigned to Air Defense Command and flew F-86D aircraft. He stated he was “scrambled off when Russian bombers would penetrate the U.S. air space.” On his DD Form 149, Application for Correction of Military Record, he states the stress of flying these missions caused his illness. He also states doctors found he was saturated with iron and needed to be “bled.” The complete DPSDC evaluation, with attachment, is at Exhibit C. Defense Finance and Accounting Service (DFAS) recommends denial. DFAS states the applicant’s disabilities are not combat related, he is not eligible for CRSC, and he served less than 20 years of service. The applicant is further not entitled to Concurrent Retirement and Disability Pay (CRDP). Title 10, USC, section 1414 provides that a member retired for disability with less than 20 years of service computed under 1405 or 12732 is not eligible for the CRDP. The complete DFAS evaluation is at Exhibit D. _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: The applicant states he is not requesting his Anemia be re- evaluated under the CRSC Program. He is requesting to be approved for CRSC payments because he met all the requirements for monetary benefits. The “Afterburner” newspaper article he submitted indicates a 100 percent disability is required to be eligible to receive CRSC. It appears the Board is denigrating all his criteria for qualifying for CRSC; placing the 100 percent denial on one criteria “failure to have served 20 years.” The applicant’s 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 an error or injustice. The available evidence of record does not support a finding that the service-connected medical conditions he believes are combat- related were 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. While the applicant states his 100 percent disability entitles him to the monetary benefits under CRSC and provides the “Afterburner” news article as documentation to challenge the CRSC Board’s decision, we do not find his assertions and documentation, in and by themselves, sufficiently persuasive to override the rationale provided by the Air Force office of primary responsibility. Accordingly, we agree with the opinions and recommendations of the Air Force offices of primary responsibility and adopt their rationale expressed as the basis for our conclusion the applicant has not been the victim of an error or injustice. In the absence of evidence to the contrary, we find no basis to recommend granting the relief sought. 4. 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(s) 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 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-2010-03027 in Executive Session on 14 June 2011, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603: The following documentary evidence was considered: Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 4 Aug 10, w/atchs. Exhibit B. Applicant’s Master Personnel Record. Exhibit C. Letter, AFPC/DPSDC, dated 17 Sep 10. Exhibit D. Letter, DFAS, dated 1 Oct 10. Exhibit E. Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 5 Nov 10. Exhibit F. Applicant’s Response, dated 24 Nov 10, w/atchs.