RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2011-00241 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO ________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: He be entitled to benefits under the Combat-Related Special Compensation (CRSC) program. ________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: His back injury which he incurred as a result of participating in aerial flight and combat missions in Vietnam entitles him to benefits under CRSC. However, his medical record has been lost. In addition, he notes that his name has always been XXXXXX rather than XXXX and he wonders if this was the reason for the denial of his CRSC application. In support of his appeal, he provides a personal statement and an excerpt from an “Afterburner” article on CRSC. The applicant’s complete submission, with attachments, is at Exhibit A. ________________________________________________________________ STATEMENT OF FACTS: The applicant was relieved from active duty, on 30 Sep 71, for service retirement. He was credited with 20 years, 1 month, and 21 days of service for retirement. ________________________________________________________________ AIR FORCE EVALUATION: AFPC/DPSDC recommends denial stating, in part, that his degenerative disc disease of the lumbar spine does not meet the mandatory criteria for compensation under the CRSC program. The applicant submitted a CRSC claim for his back condition. His claim was initially disapproved since he did not meet the minimum eligibility criteria and was not receiving disability compensation payments from the Department of Veterans Affairs (DVA). He provided additional information and was subsequently disapproved twice. No evidence was provided to confirm this disability was the direct result of armed conflict, hazardous service, instrumentality of war, or simulating war. The applicant contends that his back condition was incurred from flying over 3,000 hours and 19 combat missions as a B-52 tail gunner. As a gunner, he sat in the rear of the plane and was subjected to extreme turbulent conditions and quick turns during bombing flights over Vietnam. His condition became acute during combat runs/hazardous duty. While the Board concedes, the applicant did perform hazardous duties as an aircrew member during combat, the issue at hand is whether a combat-related event is the direct cause of his disability. It is evident the applicant had repeated treatment for his recurring back pain during military service; however, there is no evidence to indicate this condition was directly caused by a combat-related event. In order for the disability to be approvable for compensation under CRSC, the condition must meet the rigorous standards established for combat-related disabilities and not merely have a service connection. Therefore, there must be documentation that shows the direct combat-related cause of each disability. By law, determinations of whether a disability is combat related will be based on the preponderance of available documentary information. All relevant documentary information is to be weighed in relation to known facts and circumstances, and determinations will be made on the basis of credible, objective documentary information in the records as distinguished from personal opinion, speculation, or conjecture. Although aircrew duties can be strenuous, when considering chronic conditions, such as degenerative disc disease, under the CRSC guidelines, it may be difficult to determine that armed conflict, hazardous service, instrumentality of war, or simulating war was the definitive cause. When making combat- related determinations the Board looks for documentation from the time of the injury confirming not only the injury, but the cause of the injury as well. Documentation provided does not confirm the applicant's degenerative disc disease was directly caused by a combat-related event. While the applicant’s condition meets the VA requirements for service connected compensation, the evidence does not support additional compensation under CRSC. The Combat-Related Special Compensation (CRSC) program, established by Public Law (PL) 107-314, provides compensation to certain retirees with combat-related disabilities. A retired member of the Uniformed Services must meet each of the four following conditions to meet the preliminary CRSC criteria: a. Has 20 or more years of active service in the Uniformed Services for the purpose of computing the amount of retired pay, or is entitled to retired pay under section 12731 of Title 10, United States Code, unless such retirement is under section 12731b of that same title or (the member is retired under Chapter 61 (disability retired). b. Is in retired status. c. Is entitled to retired pay, notwithstanding that such retired pay may be reduced due to receipt of Department of Veterans Affairs (DVA) disability compensation. d. Has qualifying disability ratings (percentages) [retiree must be entitled to compensation for service-connected disabilities under 10 USC 38 by the DVA]. Qualifying Combat-Related Disability: Member has combat-related disabilities (which include any Purple Heart disabilities) that are compensated by the DVA. The complete AFPC/DPSDC evaluation, with attachments, is at Exhibit C. ________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: The applicant notes that he initially injured his back during crew member flights in 1958, several other times from 1959 – 1967. He re-injured his back while participating in 19 bombing mission as a tail gunner. He notes that DPSD advisory references a Standard Form (SF) 502, Narrative Summary, dated 27 Jun 67; however, he expresses that that date is not correct, because he returned from his deployment early and was subsequently grounded because of his condition. In support of his appeal, the applicant provides a personal statement and extracts from his master personnel record. The applicant’s complete response, 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 not timely filed; however, it is in the interest of justice to excuse the failure to timely file. 3. Insufficient relevant evidence has been presented to demonstrate the existence of 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 offices of primary responsibility and adopt its rationale as the basis for our conclusion the applicant has not been the victim of an error or injustice. In addition, we note, the applicant’s concern over whether his application was given “full and complete” consideration due to his name being transposed on correspondence he received. However, we do not find any evidence that consideration of the applicant’s case has been impacted by such an error. . . Therefore, in the absence of evidence to the contrary, we find no basis to recommend granting the relief sought in this application. ________________________________________________________________ The following members of the Board considered Docket Number BC- 2011-00241 in Executive Session on 24 October 2011, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603: The following documentary evidence was considered: Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 17 Jan 11, w/atchs. Exhibit B. Applicant's Master Personnel Records. Exhibit C. Letter, AFPC/DPSDC, dated 23 Mar 11, w/atch. Exhibit D. Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 8 Apr 11. Exhibit E. Letter, Applicant, dated 14 Apr 11, w/atchs. Panel Chair