RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF:	DOCKET NUMBER:  BC-2002-03952
		INDEX CODE:  115.00
		COUNSEL:  NONE

		HEARING DESIRED:  YES

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

His last 6 months of gate time be waived so that he may meet the requirements for his third flying gate.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

Air Force needs and discretionary decisions made by personnel at AFPC inhibited his return to flying.  He did not reach the third gate requirements due to multiple factors, which culminated in the AFPC decision to not reassign him to a flying organization.  He left flying in March 1991 with 126 gate months.  During the 1991 through 1997 timeframe he served on several headquarters staff tours.  During that period, the Air Force downsized, his primary aircraft was retiring, and the timeframe was an era of Return-to-Fly (RTF) boards and volunteer assignments.  Through a collection of events, rated shortage on staff positions and limited 2 seat fighters, along with AFPC discretion, he never met the 132-month gate requirement.  During that time frame he lost 2 months due to extended Duty Not Including Flying (DNIF) and because his last flight in March 1991 was before the 15th of the month.  He asks that those months be reinstated.  In addition, applicant states that during the 1991 through 1997 timeframe he participated in aerial flight on five different occasions supporting combat operations and aircrew training.  If allowed credit for the 2 months he lost and credit for the flights during which he used his extensive aviation and Electronic Warfare expertise to support actual flights within combat zones, he would then be able to accumulate 132 gate months.  

His complete submission, with attachment, is at Exhibit A.

_________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

Applicant is currently serving on extended active duty in the grade of colonel, having assumed that grade effective and with a date of rank of 1 Nov 02.  

He completed 126 months of OFDA by 1 Oct 91 and was assigned to transition status code "C," requiring him to complete 120 months of OFDA to entitle him to Aviation Continuation Incentive Pay (ACIP) through 22 years of aviation service and 144 for entitlement through 25 years of aviation service.

_________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

USAF/XOOT recommends denial.  XOOT states that the applicant does not qualify for an Operational Flying Duty Accumulator (OFDA) waiver.  Current policy manages rated officers to 10 years of operational flying (120 months of OFDA).  It is a member's responsibility to manage their assignments through their third flying gate.  The applicant was aware of his OFDA gate requirements when he stopped flying in March 1991 and he volunteered for all but one of his inactive assignments.  He was not afforded an opportunity to fly in 1993, accounting for only two of his 8-year inactive period prior to meeting his 18-year flying gate.  He did not actively solicit assignments to return to fly; therefore, he did not accumulate the required 144 months for entitlement to 25 years of aviation service and is only entitled to ACIP through 22 years of aviation service.  He cannot be given constructive credit for orientation flights since he was not qualified in any of the aircraft he received orientation flights, nor was he on aeronautical orders authorizing frequent and regular operational flying duty. 

The XOOT evaluation is at Exhibit B.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

The XOOT evaluation alludes to the conclusion that he avoided returning to the cockpit, which is not the case.  In 1993, he was not selected by the RTF board.  During the all-volunteer assignment period, any assignment a member ended up with gave the appearance that he/she volunteered for the job.  This however, does not portray the telephone conversations during which the possibilities and availabilities of cockpits were discussed, nor does it portray the guidance offered by assignment officers.  He challenges the notion that all responsibility rests upon the individual's shoulders after the 120 month time frame to manage his gate months.  This suggests that an officer should find a "work-around" to the assignment system if sent to a non-flying job in order to meet gate time.  All an officer can be expected to do is contact his assignments officer, discuss options, volunteer for what is available, and serve where assigned.  

The period of the 90's saw a tremendous drawdown in aircraft available for fighter Weapons Systems Officers (WSOs) with the retirement of the F-4 and F-111.  Through bad luck and poor timing, cockpits were not available during his permanent change of station periods.  Instead his expertise was greatly needed in the staff/support community to replace the loss of fighter pilots.  

His complete submission is at Exhibit D.

_________________________________________________________________

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 error or injustice that would warrant granting a waiver of his flying gate requirements.  Applicant contends that factors outside of his control inhibited his ability to meet his flying gate requirements.  We took notice of the applicant's complete submission in judging the merits of the case; however, we do not find his assertions sufficiently persuasive to override the rationale provided by the Air Force.  The Air Force assignment system focuses on assignment equity and the individual's desires and needs; however, the needs of the Air Force remain paramount.  Evidence has not been presented which would lead us to believe that the appropriate standards were not applied, that he was denied any of the rights and privileges he was entitled to, or that he was treated differently than other similarly situated individuals.  Therefore, in the absence of persuasive evidence to the contrary, we find no compelling basis to recommend granting the relief sought in this application.

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 issue involved.  Therefore, the request for a hearing is not favorably considered.

_________________________________________________________________

THE BOARD DETERMINES THAT:

The applicant be notified that the evidence presented did not demonstrate the existence of material error or injustice; that the application was denied without a personal appearance; and that 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-2002-03952 in Executive Session on 3 Jun 03, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603:

The following documentary evidence was considered:

    Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 2 Dec 02, w/atch.
    Exhibit B.  Letter, USAF/XOOT, dated 3 Mar 03.
    Exhibit C.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 7 Mar 03.
    Exhibit D.  Letter, Applicant, dated 22 Mar 03.