RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2014-05241 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: YES APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: His medical retirement reflect that his Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD) was caused due to combat in Iraq as a result of armed conflict (administratively corrected), he be granted Combat-Related Special Compensation (CRSC), and his Line of Duty (LOD) be changed from Existed Prior to Service – Service Aggravated to In the Line of Duty. APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: His mental health records concluded his PTSD was caused by combat experiences while deployed to Iraq so therefore his CRSC application should be approved. In support of his application, he provides supporting documents from previous CRSC claims, Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) medical documentation identifying his PTSD as combat-related, his Medical Evaluation Board (MEB) and Physical Evaluation Board (PEB) results, and his Army Achievement Medal citation stating he was on watch tower security. In addition, the applicant contends there is no medical documentation from a mental health professional prior to joining the Air Force in Aug 84 that shows he had mental disorders. He never saw a mental health professional until he was stationed at Izmir AS, Turkey (in 1987) but it had nothing to do with mental issues. He did not start having issues until he returned back from Iraq in 2006. He states his documentation contradicts the findings of the MEB/PEB and the LOD. The applicant’s complete submission, with attachments, is at Exhibit A. STATEMENT OF FACTS: The applicant initially entered the Regular Air Force on 22 Aug 84. On 16 Jun 87, he received mental health services at the Izmir Clinic for depression and subsequently received group therapy. On 01 Oct 94, he was released from active duty, furnished an honorable discharge, and was credited with 10 years, 1 month, and 9 days of active service. On 18 Feb 03, he enlisted into the Air Force Reserve. From 16 Jun 05 – 17 Mar 06, he was called to active duty and deployed to Iraq with the 557th Expeditionary Red Horse Squadron in support of Operation IRAQI FREEDOM. On 11 May 06, he sought treatment with the VA for lower back pain and difficulty sleeping, anger issues, problems concentrating, and apprehension when he is in unfamiliar places since being in Iraq and continued to be seen over the next several years. On 24 Jul 10, he was placed on duty restrictions limiting his duty and mobility activity. On 19 Nov 12, he received a rating decision from the VA of 70 percent for major depressive disorder. On 20 Aug 13, AFRC/CV signed the applicant’s informal LOD determination designating his condition of Anxiety Disorder as Existed Prior To Service - Service Aggravated (EPTS-SA) and subsequently referred to a MEB. On 12 Dec 13, the applicant was evaluated for the MEB and his Narrative Summary found he was not fit for military duty. On 27 Feb 14, the MEB referred his case to the Informal Physical Evaluation Board (IPEB) with a finding of Anxiety Disorder, EPTS-SA. On 3 Mar 14, the applicant rebutted the MEB finding of Anxiety Disorder arguing instead for a PTSD diagnosis and on 12 Mar 14, the 59 MDOG/CC rejected his rebuttal. On 25 June 14, the applicant accepted IPEB findings and recommended disposition with an unfitting condition of Anxiety Disorder and waived his rights to a formal PEB hearing. On 24 Jul 14, Special Order No. ACD-02883 placed him on the Temporary Disability Retired List (TDRL), furnished an honorable discharge, and was credited with 11 years, 7 months, and 10 days of active service (effective 29 Aug 14). The Special Order reflected his disability received was not as a direct result of armed conflict nor was the disability incurred in a combat zone or during the performance of duty in combat-related operations. On 5 Aug 14, 11 Sep 14, and 5 Oct 14, his first three CRSC claims were rejected as he failed to meet the basic eligibility requirements. On 26 Nov 14, his CRSC claim was rejected based on the documentation received contained no evidence to confirm his PTSD was the direct result of a combat-related event. On 8 Jan 15, his resubmitted CRSC claim was again rejected. On 10 Feb 15, Special Order No. ACD-01280 amended Special Order No. ACD-02883 reflecting his disability was a direct result of armed conflict and was incurred in a combat zone or during the performance of duty in combat-related operations. AIR FORCE EVALUATION: AFPC/DPFD administratively corrected the combat-related designation on the applicant’s AF Form 356, Finding and Recommended Disposition of USAF Physical Evaluation Board, and his TDRL orders for his unfitting PTSD condition. However, DPFD does not have the authority to remove the EPTS statement from his LOD. A complete copy of the AFPC/DPFD evaluation, with attachments, is at Exhibit C. AFRC/SGO recommends denial of the applicant’s request to change his LOD. Applicant’s records clearly and unmistakably show he had pre-existing mental health mood disorders prior to his deployment in 2005-2006. Therefore, a finding of service aggravation for the pre-existing condition coupled with the new PTSD manifestation would be best adjudicated as Existed Prior to Service-Service Aggravated (EPTS-SA). AFRC/SGO notes the recently released AFI 36-2910 (dated 8 Oct 15) eliminates the EPTS-SA finding and all conditions deemed to be service aggravated are, by default, found In the Line of Duty. A complete copy of the AFRC/SGO evaluation is at Exhibit D. AFPC/DPFDC recommends denial of the applicant’s request for reconsideration of CRSC indicating he failed to provide sufficient documentation to show he was directly exposed to hostile fire and therefore does not meet the mandatory criteria for compensation under the CRSC program as outlined in 10 U.S.C., § 1413a, and the Office of the Under Secretary of Defense Guidance, dated Jan 04. The guidance states, “Determinations of whether a disability is combat-related will be based on the preponderance of available documentary information where quality of information is more important than quantity. 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.” A review of his records does not confirm the applicant was directly exposed to hostile fire. A complete copy of the AFPC/DPFDC evaluation is at Exhibit E. BCMR-MED defers to the Board to interpret and apply the combat- related laws and policies where one agency determined the medical condition is combat-related while another opines it does not meet the more stringent CRSC criteria. Furthermore, BCMR- MED does not provide a recommendation as the clinical diagnosis and reason for release from service are not under challenge. A complete copy of the BCMR-MED evaluation is at Exhibit F. APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: The applicant refutes the validity of the conclusions of the advisory opinions regarding CRSC and the LOD. For CRSC, he argues that 10 USC 1413 and CRSC guidelines shows no requirement for direct contact with hostile fire and the term “combat- related” should meet the definition that is stated in the code of federal regulation. His combat-related medical diagnosis from certified doctors from both the Air Force and VA should not be evidence omitted as proof highlighting his Air Force Temporary Disability Retired List (TDRL) orders that state, “Disability was the direct result of a combat related injury as defined in 26 USC 104.” Furthermore, he argues there is no such wording in the DoD guidance that says “directly exposed to hostile fire” and that this wording appears to be someone’s interpretation. For the LOD, he argues that the notes of the attending physician during his 87 visit to the Izmir AB, Turkey clinic does not state that he had mental disorders; rather he was depressed since this was his first time away from home. To say he had mental disorders since 87 is inaccurate. In support of his response, the applicant provides copies of his informal PEB findings, excerpts of Public Law 108-136 and 107- 314, and DoD Guidance Memorandum (dated 27 Apr 04) (Exhibit H). 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, to include his rebuttal comments, 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 their rationale as the basis for our conclusion that relief beyond that already granted administratively is not warranted. Although the applicant refutes AFPC/DPFDC’s rationale indicating that exposure to hostile fire is required to qualify for CRSC, notwithstanding, we denied his request based on the Office of the Under Secretary of Defense Directive Type Memorandum guidance which states, “An uncorroborated statement in a record that a disability is combat-related will not, in and of itself, be considered determinative for purposes of meeting the combat- related standards for CRSC.” Without corroborated statements by those within his chain-of-command with knowledge of the events at the time they occurred, we find no basis to favorably consider this application. If the applicant obtains such evidence, we suggest he first present this evidence to the CRSC program office before reconsideration by this Board. 4. The applicant’s case is adequately documented and it has not been shown that a personal appearance with or without counsel will materially add to our understanding of the issues involved. Therefore, the request for a hearing is not favorably considered. 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-2014-05241 in Executive Session on 29 Jan 16 under the provisions of AFI 36-2603: Panel Chair Member Member The following documentary evidence was considered: Exhibit A. DD Form 149s, dated 23 Dec 14 and 15 Jan 15, w/atchs. Exhibit B. Applicant's Master Personnel Records. Exhibit C. Memorandum, AFPC/DPFD, dated 10 Feb 14, w/atchs. Exhibit D. Memorandum, AFRC/SGO, dated 3 Nov 15. Exhibit E. Memorandum, AFPC/DPFDC, dated 3 Mar 15, w/atchs. Exhibit F. Memorandum, BCMR MED, dated 12 Nov 15. Exhibit G. Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 1 Dec 15. Exhibit H. Applicant Rebuttal, dated 11 Dec 15.