RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF: 			DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2016-01088

						COUNSEL:  NONE

						HEARING DESIRED:  NO 

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

His back condition that rendered him unfit for duty be categorized as Combat Related – “S” for duty under conditions simulating war.

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

His back injury occurred during combat skills training in preparation for deployment into a combat zone.  Although in pain, he did not report it to medical personnel, he continued training and deployed with his unit to the Area of Responsibility (AOR).  After arriving in the AOR and continuing strenuous training, his pain continued.  His condition was noted by his leadership, and he was sent home, where he had the first of three surgeries.  

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

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

During the matter in question, the applicant was serving in the Air Force Reserve, in the grade of technical sergeant (E-6).  

On 14 Jan 13, AF Form 489, Duty Limiting Condition Report, placed the applicant on duty and mobility restrictions, pending an Medical Evaluation Board (MEB) to determine fitness for continued worldwide duty and retention.  

On 16 May 13, a MEB Narrative, reported that the applicant initially injured his back while building pallets, throwing chain gates, and chaining down equipment while preparing for deployment in Sep 04.  The report concluded that the applicant was not worldwide qualified and was unable to perform his military duties.  

On 4 Apr 14, an Informal Physical Evaluation Board (IPEB), found the applicant unfit, with a recommendation of Permanent Retirement (PR) with a combined compensable disability rating of 40 percent for Degenerative Disc Disease, status post L4, L5 and S1 fusions, designated as Combat Zone Not Combat Related. 
On 23 Apr 14, the applicant signed AF Form 1180, Action on Physical Evaluation Board Findings and Recommended Disposition, indicating that he did not agree with the findings and recommended disposition of the IPEB, and requesting a formal hearing.

On 12 May 14, the applicant’s military Disability Evaluation Attorney, signed a memorandum to the President, Formal Physical Evaluation Board (FPEB), requesting the FPEB take a look at the applicant’s combat related issue, and hopefully find his condition should be “Combat Related.”  

On 13 May 14, the applicant submitted a request to “waive a FPEB Hearing,” accepting the IPEB’s findings and recommendations.  

On 14 May 14, the FPEB President, approved the applicant’s request to waive the FPEB Hearing.  

On 5 Jun 14, SecAF directed the applicant be permanently retired under the provision of 10 USC 1201.  

On 7 Jul 14, the applicant was relieved from active duty, and effective 8 Jul 14, he was permanently disability retired, and was credited with 24 years, 4 months, and 21 days of service for pay.   

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.  A MEB narrative dated 16 May 13, indicates; “initially injured his back while building pallets and throwing chain gates and chaining down equipment preparing for deployment Sep 04” and further goes on to say “The pain continued during Combat Skills training but did not seek medical care.”  On 4 Apr 14, an IPEB found the applicant unfit, with a recommendation of Permanent Retirement (PR) with a combined compensable disability rating of 40 percent for Degenerative Disc Disease, status post L4, L5 and S1 fusions, designated as Combat Zone Not Combat Related.  The applicant non-concurred; appealing to the Formal Physical Evaluation Board (FPEB); with a contention his back condition should be designated “Combat Related.”  Later, he waived the FPEB appeal, and was medically retired effective 08 Jul 14.

The fact that a member incurred a disability during a period of simulating war or in an area of simulated armed conflict or while participating in simulated combat operations is not sufficient by itself to support a combat-related determination.  There must be a definite, documented, causal relationship between the simulated armed conflict and the resulting disability.  Based on the evidence presented, they were unable to identify a combat-related event as the cause of the applicant’s back injury.  

A complete copy of the AFPC/DPFDD evaluation is at Exhibit C.

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

The applicant refutes the point made by the OPR regarding the MEB Narrative indicating his “injury occurred while building pallets and throwing chain gates,” arguing that is incorrect.  The injury initially occurred during combat skills training in preparations for his unit’s deployment to Iraq.  In support of his request, the applicant provides copies of unit members’ statements, previously submitted with his original application.  He believes his injury meets the definition for “combat related” vs. “injury in combat zone under the clause of Simulation of war” as documented by the statements provided.  

A complete copy of the applicant’s rebuttal, with attachments, is at Exhibit E.  

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, to include his rebuttal; 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 RECOMMENDS 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-2016-01088 in Executive Session on 25 Jul 17 under the provisions of AFI 36-2603:

The following documentary evidence pertaining to AFBCMR Docket Number BC-2016-01088 was considered:

	Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, received 17 Mar 16, w/atchs.
	Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
	Exhibit C.  Memorandum, AFPC/DPFDD, dated 22 Jun 16.
	Exhibit D.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 13 Dec 16.
	Exhibit E.  Email, applicant, dated 26 Jan 17, 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 that the foregoing is a true and complete record of the Board's proceedings in the above entitled matter.