RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2014-00980 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: He be entitled to benefits under the Combat-Related Special Compensation (CRSC) program for tinnitus. APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: He should be awarded CRSC for tinnitus, due to the loud noises he endured from working on the flight line as a crew chief and pulling alert duties. His tinnitus is from the loud noises he experienced while working on the flight line and during Temporary Duty (TDY) assignments all over the South Pacific, including missions over in Vietnam. He provides two statements from his medical providers; however, he was denied by the CRSC board and believes because of the acoustical trauma he experienced, this Board would be in favor of amending his record to qualify for CRSC. The Board should find it in the interest of justice to consider his untimely application because he has tinnitus due to all of the noise trauma that he endured while working on the flight line and temporary duty assignments during his twenty years of service. The applicant’s complete submission, with attachments, is at Exhibit A. STATEMENT OF FACTS: On 24 Feb 71, the applicant initially entered the Regular Air Force in the grade of airman basic. He served as an Aircraft Maintenance Technician for 19 years and 6 months. On 28 Feb 91, the applicant was retired from active duty in the grade of Technical Sergeant (TSgt/E-6), and was credited with 20 years and 7 days of active service. 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 will be denied accordingly. If the veteran satisfies the preliminary CRSC criteria, the claim is reviewed for combat-related determination. AIR FORCE EVALUATION: AFPC/DPFDC recommends denial indicating that his condition of tinnitus does not meet the mandatory criteria for compensation under the CRSC program as outlined under the provisions of Title 10 U.S.C., Section 1413a and the Office of the Under Secretary of Defense (OUSD) Guidance. There is no documentation confirming his tinnitus was incurred during his service. DPFDC notes in his initial claim the applicant indicates his tinnitus was incurred from his duties as a KC-135 Alert Expeditor while “responding to alert exercises once or twice a month with six tanker [sic] on alert firing there [sic] cartridges and running there [sic] engines to power.” In his DD Form 149, Application for Correction of Military Record, he asserts that his tinnitus, “which was not documented in my records” should be approved for CRSC due to his 20 years of working on the flight line and his aircraft alert duties. Per OUSD Guidance, 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. When determining if a person qualifies for CRSC due to tinnitus, the board looks for: 1) documentation confirming instances of direct exposure to a combat-related acoustic trauma, and, 2) confirmation the condition manifested while in service. On 10 Oct 13, DPFDC advised the applicant that his Air Force duties are potentially approvable for compensation for tinnitus (they meet the direct exposure to a combat-related acoustic trauma criteria). However, there is no confirmation his condition manifested itself in service. The Department of Veterans Affairs (DVA) awarded this condition on 8 Jul 11, 20 years after his 1 Mar 91 retirement. A Standard Form 600, Chronological Record of Medical Care, dated 5 Oct 11, references the applicant has indicated a problem with tinnitus and hearing loss, but the provisional diagnosis only mentions hearing loss. Hearing Loss and Tinnitus Disability Benefits Questionnaire, dated 13 Dec 12, indicates a diagnosis of hearing loss; there is only a reference to the applicant’s “report” that he “noticed tinnitus just prior to retirement.” However, this document is dated more than 20 years after retirement, and there is no confirmation from prior to his 1991 retirement of a report/diagnosis of tinnitus while in service. In the applicant’s medical records, service audiometric exams, annual physicals, and retirement physical are all silent for complaint or diagnosis of tinnitus. If the applicant has in service medical documentation confirming his tinnitus manifested or was diagnosed while in service (as opposed to 20 years after retirement) he should submit this documentation for reconsideration. The complete DPFDC evaluation, with attachments, is at Exhibit C. APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: The applicant notes the CRSC office already indicates that his Air Force duties are potentially approvable for compensation for tinnitus (they meet the direct exposure to a combat-related acoustic trauma criteria). However, they said there is no confirmation that his condition manifested itself in service. He has already provided the Hearing Loss and Tinnitus Disability Questionnaire, dated 13 Dec 12, performed by the DVA stating the veteran's tinnitus is: At least likely as not (50 percent probability or greater) caused by or a result of military noise exposure. Rationale: noise exposure for this veteran was significant as an aircraft maintenance technician throughout his 20 years in service. He has provided copies of his enlisted performance reports as documentary information confirming instances of direct exposure to a combat-related acoustic trauma. He also have two Ear Nose and Throat (ENT) doctors state his condition of tinnitus was due to 20 years military service noise exposure and believes this is where his tinnitus was manifested in service. In support of his response, the applicant provides copies of his Airman Performance Reports (APRs) and excerpts from his DVA 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 an error or injustice. We took notice of the applicant’s complete submission, including his response to the Air Force evaluation, in judging the merits of the case. However, 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 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-2014-00980 in Executive Session on 16 Jun 15 under the provisions of AFI 36-2603: , Panel Chair , Member , Member The following documentary evidence pertaining AFBCMR Docket Number BC-2014-00980 was considered: Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 5 Mar 14, w/atchs. Exhibit B. Pertinent Excerpts from Personnel Records. Exhibit C. Letter, AFPC/DPFDC, dated 1 Apr 14. Exhibit D. Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 30 May 14. Exhibit E. Letter, Applicant, dated 11 Jun 14, w/atchs.