RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2010-03892 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: His service-connected disabilities of intervertebral disc syndrome (lumbar spine), and kidney stones, be assessed as combat related in order to qualify for compensation under the Combat Related Special Compensation (CRSC) Act. _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: The CRSC office denied his request and claims he has not provided enough evidence to show that his service related disabilities are directly linked to combat-related (also training for combat/hazardous service) factors. The CRSC office also stated that his Department of Veterans Affairs (DVA) approved service related disabilities were incurred performing “normal duties” and that to be approved for compensation, clear documentation must be provided to indicate an injury/disability occurred and/or was caused by a specific combat-related factor rather than from “routine causes.” Nothing is “routine” when it comes to flying fighter aircraft in combat, or “normal” about landing them at night without any landing gear. He served 27 years as a fighter pilot, and has over 2,900 hours of flying time (142 hours in combat), all in tactical ejection seat (high G force) fighters. His back disability is directly related to sitting in a cramped ejection seat/high G fighter and his kidney stones are a direct result of not urinating before/during this same hazardous service and high stress combat/combat training can and will cause disabilities, just as real and painful as sudden or abrupt incidents. In support of his appeal, the applicant provides a personal statement, copies of documents relating to his CRSC application, Air Force and Army CRSC Website printouts, and new supporting medical records. The applicant's complete submission, with attachments, is at Exhibit A. _________________________________________________________________ STATEMENT OF FACTS: The applicant served on active duty in the Regular Air Force from 11 Nov 82 until 31 Mar 09. He served as a fighter pilot, and was progressively promoted to the grade of colonel. On 1 Apr 09, he retired from the Air Force, having served 26 years, 4 months, and 20 days on active duty. The applicant submitted a claim for CRSC for intervertebral disc syndrome (lumbar spine), and kidney stones; his application was disapproved. He requested reconsideration, and his request was denied. His application was disapproved based on the fact no evidence was provided to confirm his disabilities were the direct result of armed conflict, hazardous service, instrumentality of war, or simulating war. To qualify as combat related the service-connected disability must be either: (1) attributed to an injury for which the Purple Heart was awarded; or (2) incurred as a direct result of armed conflict, while engaged in hazardous service, in the performance of duties under conditions simulating war, or through an instrumentality of war; as determined under criteria prescribed by the Secretary of Defense. The CRSC program was established to provide compensation to certain retirees with Combat-Related disabilities that qualify under the criteria set forth in Title 10, United States Code, (10 USC) Section 1413a. _________________________________________________________________ AIR FORCE EVALUATION: AFPC/DPSDC recommends denial. DPSDC states the applicant’s conditions do not meet the mandatory criteria for compensation under the CRSC program as outlined under the provisions of 10 U.S.C., Section 1413a. DPSDC states the fact that a member incurred a disability during a period of hazardous service is not sufficient by itself to support a combat-related determination. There must be a definite, documented, causal relationship between the hazardous service and the resulting disability. 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. After reviewing the applicant’s documentation, DPSDC was unable to identify a combat-related event as the cause of his disabilities. It is evident the applicant had treatment for his kidney stones during military service; however, there is no evidence to indicate this condition was directly caused by performance of his duties as a pilot. Medical documentation, dated 14 Apr 04, reflects “He passed a small left ureteral stone last fall, and had a metabolic evaluation that showed low urine volume as the only identifiable risk factor. I discussed this and he has changed his hydration habits.” There is no indication of a specific cause for his kidney stones identified in his documentation. With regards to his back condition, a review of his Service Medical Record reveals the following: 1) Standard Form (SF) 600, Chronological Record of Medical Care, dated 18 Sep 89, states “back pain-started upon rising from sitting position;” and 2) Emergency Care and Treatment, dated 16 Sep 89, states “low back pain and heavy lifting yesterday.” DPSDC states after reviewing the applicant’s documentation they were unable to identify a combat-related event as the cause of his disabilities. The complete DPSDC evaluation, with attachment, is at Exhibit C. _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: On 14 Jan 11, a copy of the Air Force evaluation was forwarded to the applicant for review and comment within 30 days. On 19 Jan 11, the applicant requested his case be administratively closed. On 22 Feb 11, the applicant requested that his case be reactivated. In response to the Air Force evaluation, the applicant states both his denial letters and the recommendation to the AFBCMR have stated he has not provided any “evidence” his DVA approved service-related disabilities were the direct result of armed conflict or simulating war. What they do not mention is his repeated request for them to answer the simple question of, “How do you show evidence of injury to chronic prolonged exposure to hazardous service?” The DVA has stated his injuries are “service related,” not “injuries while incurred on active duty.” His service was as a fighter pilot flying high G ejection seat fighters. In the course of his 27 years of service, he has flown over 2,900 hours in armed conflict and simulated war. He meets and exceeds all qualifying requirements set forth by both the Air Force and Army CRSC offices and his service related injuries are not routine. The applicant's complete response is at Exhibit E. On 1 May 11, the applicant provided additional documentation to include in his appeal. He provided a news article from the Air Force Times, dated 18 Apr 11, titled “DoD asks helo pilots about their back pain.” On 1 Aug 11, he provided a second news article from the Stars and Stripes, dated 29 Jul 11, titled “Survey: Helo aviators suffer back, neck pain.” These articles confirm his argument for CRSC approval, that chronic prolonged exposure to hazardous service can and will cause debilitating injuries. Although his flying was not in helicopters, ejection seat fighters do cause the same back issues and according to the news articles, the DoD is now admitting this. The applicant’s complete responses, with attachments, are at Exhibit F & G. _________________________________________________________________ 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 an error or injustice. The available evidence of record and the documentation provided by the applicant does not support a finding that his service- connected disabilities of intervertebral disc syndrome (lumbar spine) and kidney stones 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, do not qualify for compensation under the CRSC Act. Regarding the applicant’s question on how does he show evidence of an injury due to chronic prolonged exposure to hazardous service. The Board, by law is a function of the Secretary of the Air Force acting through a Board of Civilians of the Department to correct an error or injustice; when necessary; however, the Board is not an investigative body and this request is not within the purview of the Board. While the applicant contends he has been denied benefits under the CRSC program for disabilities awarded by the DVA which were determined to be service related; and challenges the CRSC Board’s decision, we do not find his evidence sufficient to conclude that the Air Force office of primary responsibility has not properly evaluated his case pursuant to the governing statute and guidance. Accordingly, we agree with their opinion and recommendation and adopt the 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. _________________________________________________________________ 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 Docket Number BC-2011-03892 in Executive Session on 13 Dec 11, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603: The following documentary evidence was considered: Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 8 Oct 10, w/atchs. Exhibit B. Applicant's Master Personnel Records. Exhibit C. Letter, AFPC/DPSDC, dated 9 Dec 10, w/atchs. Exhibit D. Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 14 Jan 11. Exhibit E. Letter, Applicant, dated 22 Feb 11. Exhibit F. Letter, Applicant, dated 1 May 11, w/atch. Exhibit G. Letter, Applicant, dated 1 Aug 11, w/atch.