RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF: 			DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2016-01808 

  						COUNSEL:  

HEARING DESIRED:  NO

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

He receive Combat Related Special Compensation (CRSC) for injuries he sustained in combat in Iraq.

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

His disabilities of Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD), back pain/lumbago and neuralgia of sciatic nerve (right/left lower) were combat-related injuries for which he should receive CRSC.  In Iraq on about 12 Feb 07, he was exiting his convoy vehicle when it was struck by a mortar on the opposite side of the truck, the concussion threw him and he landed on his back.  He did not see a doctor until he returned to Grand Fork AFB, ND.  He was accepted into the Limited Assignment Status (LAS) program, but in 2013 he requested a Medical Evaluation Board (MEB), which resulted in a 40 percent disability rating, and which stated his injury is a direct result of armed conflict and his disability was incurred in a combat zone.   

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

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

The applicant initially entered the Regular Air Force on 14 Sep 94.

Under Special Order NO. ACD-1908, his retirement order, dated 26 Apr 13, indicated his disability was the direct result of a combat related injury as defined in Title 26, United States Code, Section 104; however, it also indicated his disability was not the direct result of armed conflict or caused by an instrumentality of war which incurred in the line of duty during a period of war.  

On 15 Jul 13, the applicant retired with a permanent disability with a compensable percentage of 40 percent, after serving 18 years, 10 months, and 2 days of active service.  

The Department of Veterans Affairs (DVA) Rating Decision rated the applicant with PTSD at a rating of 50 percent, back pain/lumbago at 40 percent, neuralgia of sciatic nerve (right lower) at 20 percent, and neuralgia of sciatic nerve (left lower) at 10 percent, effective 16 Jul 13.  

The remaining relevant facts pertaining to this application are contained in the memoranda prepared by the Air Force offices of primary responsibility (OPRs), which are attached at Exhibits C and E.    

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

AFPC/DPFDC recommends denial indicating there is no evidence of an error or an injustice.  The CRSC program was established to provide compensation to certain retirees with combat-related disabilities that qualify under established criteria.  If the veteran fails to satisfy the preliminary CRSC criteria, no further consideration by their service department is required and the claim is denied accordingly.  If the veteran satisfies the preliminary CRSC criteria, the claim is reviewed for combat-related determination.  In accordance with Public Law 107-314, CRSC is payable to retirees who elect benefits under section 1413 of the law.  When making combat-related determinations for PTSD and mood disorder under the armed conflict criteria the CRSC Board looks for instances of direct combat exposure, such as direct exposure to gunfire or mortar attack.  PTSD “stressors” attributed to the death of individuals, where the member was not directly involved in the event that caused the death(s) (such as caring for wounded or dead), do not qualify for CRSC.  Clear documentation must be provided to indicate an injury/disability occurred and/or was caused by a specific combat-related event.

On 28 May 15, the applicant submitted a claim to the CRSC Board for CRSC for his PTSD, back pain/lumbago and neuralgia of sciatic nerve (right/left lower). His claim was disapproved on 12 Jun 15.  On 23 Nov 15, the applicant requested reconsideration of the Board’s disapproval of compensation for his disabilities.  The request for reconsideration was denied on 15 Dec 15.  Again, on 11 Jan 16, the applicant requested another reconsideration.  His claim was disapproved on 27 Jan 16.  To date no evidence has been provided to confirm his disabilities were the direct result of armed conflict, hazardous service, instrumentality of war, or simulating war.

The applicant contends his PTSD was incurred as a direct result of combat actions and injury while deployed in Iraq and Kuwait.  He also contends his back was injured in Iraq when a mortar hit the opposite side of his truck and the blast threw him off the truck steps in 2007.  However, his request contained no definitive evidence to confirm this disability was the direct result of a combat-related event.  The applicant did not provide a cause for his neuralgia of sciatic nerve (right/left lower).  The information received contained no definitive evidence to confirm these disabilities were a direct result of a combat-related event.  This lack of evidence prevents consideration under current CRSC criteria.

While the Findings and Recommended Disposition of the AF Physical Evaluation Board (PEB) found the applicant’s PTSD and mood disorder to be combat related in accordance with AFI 36-3212, Physical Evaluation for Retention, Retirement, and Separation, the PEB process and standards for determinations are governed under a guidance which determines a member’s ability to remain on active duty.  Their decision does not qualify a disability as combat related under the CRSC program.  The CRSC Board must look at what caused the condition, the activities taking place at the time, and the resulting disability.  As such, many disabilities are not approvable for compensation under the CRSC program.

Recommend denial of the applicant request.  His PTSD, back pain/lumbago and neuralgia of sciatic nerve (right/left lower) do not meet the criteria for him to receive CRSC.  

A complete copy of the AFPC/DPFDC evaluation, with attachments, is at Exhibit C.

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF THE AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

A copy of the Air Force evaluation was forwarded to the applicant on 5 Jul 17 for review and comment within 30 days (Exhibit D).  As of this date, no response has been received by this office.

ADDITIONAL AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

The Psychiatric Advisor recommends denial indicating there is no evidence of an error or an injustice.  This Psychiatric Advisor found no clinical basis for disagreement with the recommendation of AFPC/DPFDC and concurs with the existing opinion dated 5 Jul 17 by the CRSC program subject matter experts recommending denial.

A complete copy of the Psychiatric Advisor’s evaluation is at Exhibit E.

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF THE ADDITIONAL AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

A copy of the Air Force evaluation was forwarded to the applicant on 23 Mar 18 for review and comment within 30 days (Exhibit D).  As of this date, no response has been received by this office.

THE BOARD CONCLUDES:

1.  The applicant has exhausted all remedies provided by existing law or regulations.

2.  The application was timely filed.

3.  After thoroughly reviewing all Exhibits, it is the Board’s opinion the applicant is not the victim of an error or injustice.  The Board concurs with the rationale and recommendation of AFPC/DPFDC and the Psychiatric Advisor and finds a preponderance of the evidence does not substantiate the applicant’s contentions.  Therefore, the Board recommends against correcting the applicant’s records.

THE BOARD RECOMMENDS:

The applicant be informed the evidence did not demonstrate material error or injustice, and the application will only be reconsidered upon receipt of relevant evidence not already considered by the Board.

The following members of the Board considered AFBCMR Docket Number BC-2016-01808 in Executive Session on 8 May 18 under the provisions of AFI 36-2603:

The following documentary evidence was considered:

	Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 27 Apr 16, w/atchs.
	Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
	Exhibit C.  Memorandum, AFPC/DPFDC, dated 5 Jul 17, w/atchs.
	Exhibit D.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 5 Jul 17.

Pursuant to paragraph 1 of AFI 36-2603 (Title 32 Code of Federal Regulations, Part 865.1), it is certified 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.