RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2015-02111 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: YES APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: His Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD) be determined to be a “combat-related” injury. APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: His Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD) is incorrectly described in his official records, as “Combat Zone, Non Combat-related” when in reality it was “Combat-related.” 1.  DoDI 1332.38, Physical Disability Evaluation, Enclosure 3, Appendix 5, states, ”Combat Related. This standard covers injuries and diseases attributable to the special dangers associated with armed conflict or the preparation or training for armed conflict.” His disability was incurred during preparation to engage in armed conflict with opposing forces. 2.  Title 26 United States Code (USC), § 104, states “(A) combat-related injury” means personal injury or sickness (a) which is incurred (i) as a direct result of armed conflict, (ii) while engaged in extra hazardous service, or (iii) under conditions simulating war; or which is caused by an instrumentality of war. In his case, automatic weapons fire was heard on his installation and was reported over the radio. Kyrgyzstan militants overthrew the Kyrgyzstan government and had armored vehicles and tanks parked a quarter mile down the road awaiting orders to attack. He and his subordinate personnel were ill equipped to defend the installation. The installation was under direct threat of an attack with the threat condition posture of Delta. This meets the definition of combat-related. The applicant’s complete submission, with attachments, is at Exhibit A. STATEMENT OF FACTS: The applicant served in the Air National Guard in the grade of Master Sergeant (MSgt) during the matter under review. According to the documentation submitted by the applicant: a.  The applicant deployed to Kyrgyzstan in support of Operation ENDURING FREEDOM during the period 18 Jan 10 through 21 Jul 10. b.  On 7 Mar 12, the appointing medical authority issued an AF Form 348, Line of Duty Determination, indicating the applicant’s PTSD, diagnosed in Nov 10, was in the line-of-duty (ILOD). c.  On 13 Sep 13, the Formal Physical Evaluation Board (FPEB) found the applicant unfit for further military service due to his PTSD with depression (Combat Zone, Not Combat Related), recommended he be assigned to the Temporary Duty Retirement List (TDRL) with a 70 percent compensable disability rating, and be reevaluated after six months. The Board considered his contention that his PTSD was combat related, but determined it was not combat related because no direct engagement with an opposing force occurred; no shots were fired. d.  On 19 Dec 13, the Secretary of the Air Force Personnel Counsel (SAF/PC), directed the applicant be place on the TDRL with a disability rating of 70 percent, and recommended re-evaluation in six months. SAF/PC determined that the applicant’s PTSD was not combat related since a combat-related condition requires engagement with an opposing armed force. e.  Under Special Order ACD-01847, dated 29 Apr 14, the applicant was placed on the TDRL, effective 30 Jul 14, with a compensable physical disability rating of 70 percent, and was credited with 14 years, 9 months, and 22 days of active service for retirement. The Special Order indicated the disability was not the direct result of a combat-related injury as defined by Title 16 United States Code (USC) § 104. The remaining relevant facts pertaining to this application are contained in the memorandum prepared by the Air Force office of primary responsibility (OPR), which is attached at Exhibit C. AIR FORCE EVALUATION: AFPC/DPFDD recommends denial indicating there is no evidence of an error or an injustice. AFI 36-3212, Physical Evaluation For Retention, Retirement, And Separation, states “Armed conflict exists if the direct use of physical force endangers the lives or safety of members of the armed services of a nation, belligerent power, coalition, or factions.” The applicant states his installation in Kyrgyzstan was the target of a tank and armored personnel carrier attack which were parked a quarter mile down the road awaiting orders. Automatic weapon fire could be heard on the installation and shots were reported. The applicant claims his personnel were ill equipped with guns, rifles and grenade launchers without grenades to defend the installation. “Due to negotiations the armored vehicles and tanks were turned away, before attacking the installation. The installation remained in threat condition Delta for over a month with constant combat patrols.” The Informal Physical Evaluation Board (IPEB), Formal Physical Evaluation Board (FPEB), and the Secretary of the Air Force Personnel Council (SAFPC) each determined the applicant’s condition to have been incurred in the combat zone but not combat related. The FPEB board president stated on the AF Form 356, Findings and Recommended Disposition of USAF Physical Evaluation Board, “The board is unable to award combat relation for incidents in which the service member faced increase tensions or posturing or the potential for armed conflict. In order for this condition to qualify as combat related under the category of armed conflict, (he) must have been engaged with opposing forces. In this incident, no direct engagement occurred; no shots were fired. The board finds the condition was incurred in the combat zone but not combat related.” The SAFPC letter to the applicant, dated 19 Dec 13 states, “A combat related condition requires engagement with an opposing armed force, meaning that each party must have the potential to cause physical harm to each other. In accordance with the definition detailed within DoDI 1332.38, the materials submitted do not support a determination that the member’s PTSD condition is combat related.” A complete copy of the AFPC/DPFDD evaluation, with attachments, is at Exhibit C. APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: A copy of the Air Force evaluation was forwarded to the applicant on 31 Jul 15 for review and comment within 30 days (Exhibit D). As of this date, no response has been received by this office. 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. 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 AFPC/DPFDD and adopt its rationale as the basis for our conclusion the applicant has not been the victim of an error of injustice. Therefore, in the absence of evidence to the contrary, we find no basis to recommend granting the requested relief. 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 issues involved. Therefore, the request for a hearing is not favorably considered. THE BOARD DETERMINES THAT: The applicant be notified the evidence presented did not demonstrate the existence of material error or injustice; the application was denied without a personal appearance; 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-2015-02111 in Executive Session on 25 Feb 16 under the provisions of AFI 36-2603: Panel Chair Member Member The following documentary evidence was considered: Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 15 May 15, w/atchs. Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records. Exhibit C.  Memorandum, AFPC/DPFDD, dated 22 Jun 15, w/atchs. Exhibit D.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 31 Jul 15. 4