RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS

IN THE MATTER OF:	DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2019-04541

XXXXXXXXXX	COUNSEL: XXXXXXXXXX
	
 	HEARING REQUESTED: NO

APPLICANT’S REQUEST

His service-connected medical condition, Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD), be assessed as combat-related in order to qualify for compensation under the Combat-Related Special Compensation (CRSC) Act.

APPLICANT’S CONTENTIONS

His PTSD was aggravated by an interrogation exercise at Survival Evasion Resistance Escape (SERE) school.  His medical records, Department of Veteran Affairs (DVA) rating decision and the findings of the Medical and Physical Evaluation Boards all note that his PTSD is combat related.  The Physical Disability Division improperly denied his request for CRSC.  The statutes and regulations defining conditions simulating war, which qualify as "combat related" for CRSC, are identical.  These are the same statutes and regulations that apply to the Physical Disability Division.  They do not have separate, "more rigorous" rules, as they assert.  All applicable definitions are identical.  The Physical Disability Division’s decision to deny CRSC is unjust and erroneous.

The applicant’s complete submission is at Exhibit A.

STATEMENT OF FACTS

The applicant is a medically retired Air Force captain (O-3).

Per the applicant’s DD Form 214, Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty, issued in conjunction with his 28 May 12 separation, he was retired in the grade of captain with a narrative reason for separation of “Disability, Temporary.” 

Per Special Order Number ACD-01913, dated 4 Apr 12, on 29 May 12, the applicant was placed on the Temporary Disability Retired List (TDRL) in the grade of captain (0-3) with a compensable percentage for Physical Disability of 50 percent.
Per Special Order Number ACD-01975, dated 20 Jan 15, the applicant was removed from the TDRL and retired in the grade of captain with a compensable disability rating of 50 percent effective 9 Feb 15.  The order reflects his disability was received in the line of duty as a direct result of armed conflict or caused by an instrumentality of war and incurred in line of duty during a period of war.  The order also indicates the disability was the direct result of a combat related injury as defined in 25 U.S.C 104.

For more information, see the excerpt of the applicant’s record at Exhibit B and the advisory at Exhibit C and D.

AIR FORCE EVALUATION

AFPC/DPFDC recommends denying the application.  Based on the documentation provided by the applicant and analysis of the facts, there is no evidence of an error or injustice.  The applicant submitted two claims for CRSC compensation.  Both of these claims were disapproved on 14 Nov 12, and 5 Mar 17, respectively as non-combat related.  The documentation submitted by the applicant in both claims provided no evidence to confirm his disability was direct result of armed conflict, hazardous service, simulation of war or an instrumentality of war.  The applicant has not provided new evidence that supports his claim for CRSC compensation.  The fact that a member incurred a disability during a period of war; while serving in an area of armed conflict; and/or while participating in combat operations during a period of simulating war, in an area of simulated armed conflict, while participating in simulated combat operations or during a period of hazardous service is not sufficient by itself to support a combat-related determination IAW 10 U.S. C. Section 1413a and DoD Financial Management Regulation, Vol 7B Chapter 6.  When making combat-related determinations, with regard to armed conflict, hazardous service, simulation of war or an instrument of war, the board looks for definite, documented, causal relationship between the combat-related event conflict and the resulting disability. 

The Findings and Recommended Disposition of the USAF Physical Evaluation Board (PEB) found the applicant’s PTSD to be combat-related in accordance with AFI 36-3212, Physical Evaluation for Retention, Retirement, and Separation.  Their process and standards for determinations are governed under a guidance which determines a member’s ability to remain fit for active duty.  However, the PEB’s decision does not automatically qualify a disability as combat-related under the CRSC program.  While service connection for disabilities is required for initial eligibility for CRSC consideration, the CRSC program is designed to provide compensation for combat-related injuries and its standards are much more rigorous when determining if claimed disabilities qualify as combat related. 

The complete advisory opinion is at Exhibit C.

The AFBCMR Psychological Advisor recommends denying the application.  The Psychological Advisor found that the applicant’s PTSD was already designated as “Combat Related” from the Formal Physical Evaluation Board on 27 Jun 14 and does not dispute this decision.  The applicant’s request for special compensation for his combat related injury is outside the purview of the Psychological advisor’s scope of practice.  This advisor refers the Board to review the advisory from the CRSC BCMR advisor to address the applicant’s request.

The complete advisory opinion is at Exhibit D.

APPLICANT’S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION

The Board sent a copy of the advisory opinion to the applicant on 6 Apr 20 for comment (Exhibit E), and the applicant replied on 30 Apr 20.  In response, the applicant contends that each time he has petitioned for CRSC, he has received a different reason for denial.  His first request was denied because he was not directly exposed to a life threatening event.  Another CRSC request was denied due to a lack of evidence documenting the relationship between SERE training and his PTSD.  He reiterates that all the statutes and regulations governing CRSC and the definition of “combat related” and “under conditions simulating war” are identical.  The MEB, PEB, and the VA all found that his PTSD is combat related.  These are the same statutes and regulations that apply to the Physical Disability Division.  They do not have separate, “more rigorous” rules, as they assert.  The applicant is entitled to CRSC compensation, and the evidence submitted proves a direct relationship between his disability and the activity simulating combat.  

The applicant’s complete response is at Exhibit E.

FINDINGS AND CONCLUSION

1.  The application was timely filed.

2.  The applicant exhausted all available non-judicial relief before applying to the Board.

3.  After reviewing all Exhibits, the Board concludes the applicant is not the victim of an error or injustice.  The Board concurs with the rationale and recommendations of AFPC/DPFDC and the AFBCMR Psychological 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.

RECOMMENDATION

The Board recommends informing the applicant the evidence did not demonstrate material error or injustice, and the Board will reconsider the application only upon receipt of relevant evidence not already presented.

CERTIFICATION

The following quorum of the Board, as defined in Air Force Instruction (AFI) 36-2603, Air Force Board for Correction of Military Records (AFBCMR), paragraph 1.5, considered Docket Number BC-2019-04541 in Executive Session on 17 Jun 20:

, Panel Chair
, Panel Member
, Panel Member

All members voted against correcting the record.  The panel considered the following:

Exhibit A:	Application, DD Form 149, w/atchs, dated 16 Aug 19.
Exhibit B:	Documentary evidence, including relevant excerpts from official records.
Exhibit C:	Advisory opinion, AFPC/DPFDC, dated 30 Dec 19.
Exhibit D:	Advisory opinion, AFBCMR Psychological Advisor, dated 13 Jan 20.
Exhibit E:	Notification of advisory, SAF/MRBC to applicant, dated 6 Apr 20.
Exhibit F:	Applicant’s response, dated 30 Apr 20.

Taken together with all Exhibits, this document constitutes the true and complete Record of Proceedings related to Docket Number BC-2019-04541, as required by AFI 36-2603, paragraph 4.11.9.