RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF:	DOCKET NUMBER:  BC-2004-02178
		INDEX CODE:  108.07
		COUNSEL:  NONE
		HEARING DESIRED:  NO

MANDATORY CASE COMPLETION DATE:  17 Jan 06

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

His service-connected medical conditions, diabetes mellitus and paralysis of sciatic nerve, be assessed as combat related in order to qualify for compensation under the Combat Related Special Compensation (CRSC) Act.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

While stationed in Saigon and during several TDYs to Vietnam he was exposed to Agent Orange sprayed foliage.

In support of his request, applicant provided a personal statement and documentation associated with his CRSC application.  His complete submission, with attachments, is at Exhibit A.
_________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

Applicant enlisted in the Regular Air Force on 10 Nov 50 and was discharged on 12 Dec 51.  He was appointed a second lieutenant, Reserve of the Air Force on 13 Dec 51 and was voluntarily ordered to extended active duty on that same date.  He was progressively promoted to the grade of colonel, having assumed that grade effective and with a date of rank of 20 Sep 71.  He served as an Intel Targeting Officer, a Strategic Navigator/Bombardier, and as a Planning and Programming Officer.  On 31 May 80, he voluntarily retired for years of service.  He served 29 years, 6 months, and 21 days on active duty

Available Department of Veterans Affairs (DVA) records reflect a combined compensable rating of 40% for his unfitting conditions.  

His CRSC application was disapproved on 21 Jun 04 based upon the fact that his service-connected medical conditions were determined not to be combat-related.

_________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

AFPC/DPPD recommends denial.  DPPD states a review of his service and DVA medical records show his diabetes mellitus and paralysis of sciatic nerve are not combat related.  He claims his disabilities were incurred by Agent Orange.  For these disabilities to be considered combat related, they must be specifically granted by the DVA as presumptive to Agent Orange.  Evidence in his personnel files show he was in Vietnam from 22 May 70 until 3 Apr 71.  His diabetes mellitus was diagnosed in December 1969.  

The DPPD evaluation is at Exhibit C.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

A copy of the Air Force evaluation was forwarded to the applicant on 30 Jul 04 for review and comment within 30 days.  As of this date, this office has received no response.

_________________________________________________________________

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 error or injustice.  After a thorough review of the available evidence of record, it is our opinion that the service-connected medical conditions the applicant believes are combat-related were not incurred as the direct result of armed conflict, while engaged in hazardous service, in the performance of duty under conditions simulating war, or through an instrumentality of war, and therefore, do not qualify for compensation under the CRSC Act.  We agree with the opinion and recommendation of the Air Force office of primary responsibility and adopt its rationale as the basis for our conclusion that the applicant has not been the victim of an error or injustice.  In the absence of evidence to the contrary, we find no compelling basis to recommend granting the relief sought in this application.

_________________________________________________________________

THE BOARD DETERMINES THAT:

The applicant be notified that the evidence presented did not demonstrate the existence of material error or injustice; that the application was denied without a personal appearance; and that 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-2004-02178 in Executive Session on 26 Jul 05, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603:

	

The following documentary evidence was considered:

    Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 6 Jul 04, w/atchs.
    Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
    Exhibit C.  Letter, AFPC/DPPD, dated 22 Jul 04.
    Exhibit D.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 30 Jul 04.
    Exhibit E.  Letter, Applicant, dated 15 Jun 05.
    Exhibit F.  Letter, SAF/MBBC, dated 29 Jun 06.