RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF: 			DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2015-02800

  						COUNSEL:  NONE

						HEARING DESIRED:  NO 

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

His Combat-Related Special Compensation (CRSC) claim be approved.  

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

His CRSC claim has been denied base on unsupported personal opinion, incorrect assumptions, and biased actions on the part of the Air Force and Navy CRSC offices as opposed to being based on official documented records on file.  

His Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD) is a result of exposure to enemy rocket and mortar attacks during his tours in Southeast Asia (SEA), first while assigned at Nakhon Phanom, Thailand, in 1967-68 and then at Phu Bai Airport, Vietnam in 1969 and Bien Hoa, Vietnam in 1972-73.  

The applicant’s complete submission, with attachments, is at Exhibit A.

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

The applicant initially entered the Regular Air Force on 2 Sep 60.

According to documents in his initial CRSC application, he served three temporary duty (TDY) tours in Southeast Asia; once in Thailand and twice in Vietnam.  

For the period of service from 26 Mar 69 to 7 Sep 69, the applicant received the Air Force Commendation Medal, First Oak Leaf Cluster, while assigned to the 1st Combat Evaluation Group, Republic of Vietnam (Phu Bai Airport).  

On 1 Apr 81, the applicant retired and was credited with 20 years, 6 months, and 29 days of active service.   

Effective 31 Jul 12, according to documents provided by the applicant, he was awarded 30 percent service connection for PTSD by the Department of Veterans Affairs (DVA).

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/DPFDC recommends denial indicating there is no evidence of an error or an injustice as documentation provided by the applicant does not confirm him being under attack as the direct cause of his condition.  The applicant states he incurred his PTSD due to his tours to SEA and has filed four appeals to his original CRSC claim.  

On 6 Nov 13, the applicant applied for CRSC alleging his PTSD manifested as a result of rocket and mortar attacks while assigned in Thailand and Vietnam.  However, on 31 Dec 13, AFPC/DPFDC denied his CRSC claim based on insufficient documentation as the documents provided did not confirm he was directly exposed to gunfire or mortar attacks at the locations he was assigned (Nakhom Phanom, Thailand or Phu Bai Airport, Vietnam).  Additionally, DPFDC could not confirm the applicant was ever at Bien Hoa, Vietnam, as alleged.  

On 21 Apr 14, the applicant requested reconsideration where he reiterated his assignment to Bien Hoa was a short, three month period at the end of the war in 1972, he had no documents to support his claim, and he could only find records to verify his assignment to Phu Bai.  On 30 Jul 14, the applicant was denied CRSC reconsideration by AFPC/DPFD.

On 8 Sep 14, the applicant requested a second CRSC reconsideration and on 3 Oct 14, the reconsideration was denied noting the Department of Veterans Affairs (DVA) standards for finding his PTSD as service-connected does not automatically qualify his disability as combat-related under the CRSC program.

On 10 Nov 14, the applicant asked for a third reconsideration and provide two U.S. Navy Deployment Completion Reports from 68-70 and downloaded damage photos at Phu Bai, Vietnam and on 14 Jan 15, the CRSC reconsideration was denied again based on the lack of documentation that confirmed he was directly exposed to a combat-related event.  

On 2 Feb 15, the applicant asked for a fourth reconsideration emphasizing his submission of the Combat Deployment Completion Reports and on 15 Apr 15, his reconsideration was denied by DPFD after coordination with Navy CRSC officials.  Their collaborative review found no available evidence that would support approval.  The applicant was notified his next avenue of appeal was to submit a DD Form 149, Application for Correction of Military Record.  

The DVA awards service-connected disabilities based on their standards and resolve doubt in the interest of the veteran to grant service connection for injuries or diseases incurred while in service.  While service connection for disabilities is required for initial eligibility for CRSC consideration, CRSC criteria is more stringent.  CRSC guidance requires objective documentary evidence in order to support a combat-related determination.  In accordance with DD Form 2860, Claim for Combat-Related Special Compensation (CRSC), the fact that a member incurred a disability during a period of armed conflict is not sufficient by itself to support a combat-related determination.  On 13 Jul 10, the DVA amended its rules for adjudicating disability compensation claims for PTSD to relax the evidentiary standard for establishing the required in-service stressor in certain cases.  A veteran’s lay testimony alone is now adequate to establish occurrence for the claimed stressor and that the claimed stressor is consistent with the places, types, and circumstances of service.  Throughout the review of the original CRSC claim and subsequent four reconsiderations, AFPC/DPFDC, as well as the Navy CRSC office, could not verify the applicant came under enemy attack as he claims.   

A complete copy of the AFPC/DPFDC 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 8 Dec 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 the Air Force office of primary responsibility (OPR) 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.

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-2015-02800 in Executive Session on 20 Sep 16 under the provisions of AFI 36-2603:

	, Panel Chair
	, Member
	, Member

The following documentary evidence was considered:

	Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 29 Jun 15, w/atchs.
	Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
	Exhibit C.  Memorandum, AFPC/DPFDC, dated 13 Nov 15, w/atchs.
	Exhibit D.  Letter, AFBCMR, dated 8 Dec 15.

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 that the foregoing is a true and complete record of the Board's proceedings in the above entitled matter.