RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS

IN THE MATTER OF:	DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2020-00590

XXXX	COUNSEL: NONE
	
	HEARING REQUESTED: NO

APPLICANT’S REQUEST

Reconsider and grant his Combat Related Special Compensation (CRSC) claim.

APPLICANT’S CONTENTIONS

The Air Force Personnel Center (AFPC) previously denied his CRSC claim.  His post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD), rated by the Department of Veterans Affairs (DVA) at 10%, was caused by years of flying an aircraft with a poor accident record where he experienced a number of potentially fatal incidents and the loss of friends in fatal accidents.  Although he last flew in 1969, he continues to have emotional issues from his flying experiences.  He attempted to add additional evidence in the form of an Air Force Incident and Flameout Team reports but he has not received copies nor responses to his requests.

The applicant’s complete submission is at Exhibit A.

STATEMENT OF FACTS

The applicant is a retired Air Force lieutenant colonel (O-5).

On 29 Aug 55, the applicant was commissioned as an Air Reserve pilot.

On 15 Apr 61, the applicant transferred to the Air National Guard as a pilot.

On 16 Sep 69, the applicant was honorably discharged from the Air National Guard and transferred to the Air Force Reserve.

On 16 Sep 72, according to Aeronautical Order 01437, dated 9 Aug 73, the applicant’s flying status was suspended for reason “flying duties no longer required.”

On 1 Sep 81, according to Reserve Order EK-1544, dated 9 Jul 81, the applicant was relieved from current assignment and placed on the Reserve Retired List. 

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

AIR FORCE EVALUATION

AFPC/DPFDC recommends denying the application.  The fact that a member incurred the disability during a period of war; while serving in an area of armed conflict; and/or while participating in combat operations 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 armed conflict and the resulting disability.

The Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) awards service-connected disabilities based on their standards.  They resolve doubt in the interest of the veteran and grant service connection for injuries or diseases incurred while in service.  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 applicant submitted a claim for CRSC compensation on 22 Feb 88 and the claim was disapproved on 31 Jun 18, as non-combat related.  The information provided by the applicant in his Application for Correction of Military Record provides no new evidence that supports his claim for CRSC compensation for PTSD. 

The complete advisory opinion is at Exhibit C.

APPLICANT’S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION

The Board sent a copy of the advisory opinion to the applicant on 19 Aug 20 for comment (Exhibit D), and the applicant replied on 4 Sep 20.  In his response, the applicant recommends the Board obtain a legal opinion on the legal issues of his request and indicated the advisory opinion requires “definite, documented, causal relationship,” but PTSD is a mental, rather than a physical condition. The causation must, of necessity, be inferred from the circumstances of the claim.  It does not lend itself well to physical evidence.  The requirement of proof in a PTSD case must be tailored to the circumstances in question.  The CRSC Office describe its standards of proof as “rigorous.”  The statute does not grant the Air Force the right to select a standard of proof in CRSC cases, more stringent than that found in civil litigation, that being “by a preponderance of the evidence.”

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 recommendation of AFPC/DPFDC and finds a preponderance of the evidence does not substantiate the applicant’s contentions.  The Board notes the applicant’s request for a legal opinion but does not find it to be necessary as the applicant has not provided sufficient evidence to support justifying CRSC on its own.  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-2020-00590 in Executive Session on 16 Dec 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 11 Nov 19.
Exhibit B:	Documentary evidence, including relevant excerpts from official records.
Exhibit C:	Advisory opinion, AFPC/DPFDC, dated 11 May 20.
Exhibit D:	Notification of advisory, SAF/MRBC to applicant, dated 19 Aug 20.
Exhibit E:	Applicant’s response, dated 4 Sep 20.

Taken together with all Exhibits, this document constitutes the true and complete Record of Proceedings, as required by AFI 36-2603, paragraph 4.11.9.