ADDENDUM TO
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF: 			DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2011-01001-3 

   						COUNSEL:  NONE 

HEARING DESIRED:  NO 

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

His service-connected disabilities qualify for Combat Related Special Compensation (CRSC) payments. 

RESUME OF CASE

On 5 Jan 12, the Board considered and denied the applicant’s request to recognize his spinal disc injury and multiple sclerosis (MS) as combat-related for the purpose of qualifying for CRSC.  The applicant indicated the Department of Veteran Administration (DVA) awarded him a 100 percent combined compensable disability rating for his MS and spinal disc injury, and contended his injuries were related to his military service while simulating war.  In denying the applicant’s request, the Board noted the applicant had applied to the CRSC Board at AFPC on 5 Jan 11, but his claim was denied, and he requested reconsideration from the CRSC Board on 22 Feb 11, but was again denied.  In determining the applicant does not qualify for compensation under the CRSC Act, the BCMR Board relied, in part, upon the advisory opinion of AFPC/DPSDC, which highlighted that for CRSC approval there must be a direct, documented causal relationship between the simulated conflict of hazardous service or the instrumentality of war, and the resulting disability.  The available record did not support a finding that the applicant’s service-connected disabilities were incurred as the direct result of armed conflict, while engaged in hazardous duty, in the performance of duty under conditions simulating war, or through an instrumentality of war.  For an accounting of the facts and circumstances surrounding the applicant’s original request and the rationale of the earlier decision by the Board, see the Record of Proceedings (ROP) at Exhibit F.

In an undated application received on 15 May 12, the applicant requested reconsideration of the Board’s 5 Jan 12 denial of his request.  (Exhibit G) 

On 12 May 13, the AFBCMR denied the applicant’s request for reconsideration, indicating the request did not meet the criteria for reconsideration.  (Exhibit H)

On 25 Aug 16, the applicant submitted a second request for reconsideration, claiming CRSC eligibility due to having served in hazardous duty on a missile site at F.E. Warren AFB, WY.  In support of his request, he submitted a news article entitled, No Plan Yet to Clean Up Missile Site Contamination, dated 17 Jan 15, which states Atlas Missile Site No. 4 continues to leach the chemical trichloroethylene (TCE) in the groundwater beneath the site, and studies have shown that ingesting TCE increases the risk of liver damage and cancer, but state and federal officials say there is no immediate public health concerns; an article entitled, A Clearer View of TCE: Evidence Supports Autoimmune Link, dated May 2009, which states autoimmune disorders such as Crohn disease, MS, and rheumatoid arthritis affect five to eight percent of the U.S population, and while the underlying causes of these disorders remain largely unknown, one agent suspected to play a role is TCE, a solvent widely used in industrial and household applications; a copy of Title 37 United States Code (USC), Section 301, Incentive Pay: Hazardous Duty; and, a lengthy report entitled EPA Superfund Record of Decision, F.E. Warren Air Force Base, Operable Unit 3, Landfill 6, Cheyenne, WY, dated 22 Jan 1996.  

The applicant’s complete request, with attachments, is at Exhibit I.

THE BOARD CONCLUDES THAT:

We have thoroughly reviewed the evidence of record and considered the weight and relevance of the additional documentation provided by the applicant, and whether or not it was discoverable at the time of any previous application.  While we find the additional documentation rendered in support of the applicant’s request is new, we do not find it relevant.  Once a case has been considered and denied by the Board established by law for that purpose, reconsideration is authorized only where newly discovered relevant evidence is presented which was not available when the application was originally submitted.  Therefore, in view of the above and in the absence of new and relevant evidence, we find no basis to reconsider the applicant’s request.

THE BOARD DETERMINES THAT:

The applicant be notified the additional evidence presented did not meet the criteria for reconsideration by the Board; and 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-2011-01001-3 in Executive Session on 22 Jun 17 under the provisions of AFI 36-2603:

	Panel Chair
	Member
	Member

The following documentary evidence was considered:

	Exhibit F.  Original ROP, dated 11 Jan 12.
	Exhibit G.  First RECON Request, undated. 
	Exhibit H.  Letter, AFBCMR, dated 12 Feb 13.  
	Exhibit I.  Second RECON Request, dated 25 Aug 16, w/atchs. 

Pursuant to paragraph 1 of AFI 36-2603 (Title 32 Code of Federal Regulations, Part 865.1), it is certified that a quorum was present at the Board's review and deliberations, and the foregoing is a true and complete record of the Board's proceedings in the above entitled matter.