RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
         AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF:	DOCKET NUMBER:  BC-2004-00965
		INDEX NUMBER:  115.00
	XXXXXXX	COUNSEL:  None

	XXXXXXX	HEARING DESIRED:  No

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

She be paid flight pay for the period 1 Nov 01 through Jan 02.

She be given credit for flight hours on her personnel records at AFPC.

She be awarded the Officer Aircrew Member badge.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

She performed aircrew duties in a temporary duty (TDY) status as an Airborne Linguist.  Due to the urgency and critical nature of the duties, the Air Staff verbally waived all aircrew training.  Due to an administrative oversight, her assigned unit failed to process the necessary paperwork for aeronautical orders, which resulted in denial of the entitlements requested above.  On a subsequent TDY for the period May through Jul 03, her paperwork was properly processed and she received flight pay and credit for flying hours.  However, she did not receive the aircrew badge.

Before her second deployment, she was medically disqualified from flying, but the flight doctor made the decision that she could go on the mission in an operational support status.  Although she did the same job, she was advised that she was not authorized the aircrew badge.

In support of her request, the applicant provides letters of support from her chain of command, copies of flight orders, and her prior efforts to get the requested entitlements.

The applicant’s complete submission, with attachments, is at Exhibit A.

_________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

The applicant is a personnel officer presently serving on active duty in the grade of first lieutenant as Group Executive in a Mission Support Group.  Her Total Active Federal Military Service Date is 27 Dec 85.  However, she was commissioned on 5 Apr 01 through the Air Force Officer Training School.  The applicant is rated as proficient in listening, speaking, and reading the language Pushtu-Afghan.

_________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

HQ USAF/XOOT recommends denial of the applicant’s request for award of the Aircrew Member badge.  The applicant’s status during the period of her deployment should have been classified as Operational Support.  Operational Support members are considered non-crew members and are not entitled to award of the Aircrew Member badge or aircrew member incentive pay.  They have directed an administrative correction of the applicant’s flight records.  The Host Aviation Resource Management (HARM) office at Tyndall Air Force Base will publish Operational Support aeronautical orders for the duration of the applicant’s deployment and get the applicant paid non-crewmember Hazardous Duty Incentive Pay (HDIP) for months in which the applicant met the minimum flying hour requirement of four hours per month.  Additionally, the Offutt AFB HARM office will add the applicant to the original AFTO Form 781, “Aircrew/Mission Flight Data Document,” to document all flying time for all missions the applicant flew during this time period.

HQ USAF/XOOT provided copies of the letters to the HARM offices at Tyndall AFB and Offutt AFB directing the stated actions.

The complete evaluation, with attachments, is at Exhibit C.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

In her response to the Air Force evaluation, the applicant provides four reasons why she disagrees with HQ USAF/XOOT’s recommendation to deny award of the Aircrew Member badge to her:

	  a. According to AFI 11-402, Para 8.2, Operational Support flying pertains to non-aircrew personnel required to perform temporary in-flight duties not associated with the aircraft’s primary mission.  Her duties were associated with the aircraft’s primary mission.

	  b. AFI 65-503 defines aircraft mission position designations and aircrew.  For Rivet Joint, Airborne Cryptologic Linguist is on the list.  She performed this duty on the aircraft at a time when there was no one else.

	  c. AFI 11-402, paragraph 6.3.1, states that “enter non-rated officers into aviation service when rated officers are not available or qualified to accomplish specific in-flight duties.  Initiate aviation service when assigning these officers to positions where the primary duty requires them to perform full-time flight duties.”

	  d.  Criteria for permanent award of the badge is covered in AFI 11-402, paragraphs 9.4 and 9.4.2.3, and states “participated in at least 10 combat missions as a primary aircrew member in a designated combat zone.”  She participated in 18 combat missions during the deployment.

The applicant further questions why she needed a Class III Flying Physical if she was performing operational duties.  Although she was not assigned to a primary aircrew position, she still performed primary aircrew duties.

In further support of her appeal, applicant provides a letter of support from her group commander and excerpts from regulations she has cited.

The applicant’s complete response, with attachments, is at Exhibit E.

_________________________________________________________________

ADDITIONAL AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

Pursuant to the Board’s request, HQ USAF/XOOT provided an additional evaluation of the applicant’s case.  After reviewing the applicant’s rebuttal, they state that although the applicant provided a great service to the Air Force and United States, she did not meet the minimum requirements for permanent award of the badge prescribed by AFI 11-402, Aviation and Parachutist Service, Aeronautical Ratings and Badges.  They explain the conditions for which the Air Force awards aviation badges and why the applicant fails to qualify.  AF/XOOT addresses each of the four areas presented by the applicant for award of the badge and why they recommend that her request for award of the badge be denied.

The complete evaluation is at Exhibit F.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF ADDITIONAL AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

The applicant responded to the additional Air Force evaluation by addressing the following points:

	  a. AF/XOOT states that she is a career personnelist, which is considered her primary duty.  The applicant responds that this is true while she is at her home station, but not true during deployments.  During deployments, she performed duties as an Airborne Cryptologic Linguist.  Therefore, she disagrees with AF/XOOT’s assertion that she performed duties as an Operational Support Flyer.  Cryto-linguists are required for the aircraft (RC-135) to perform its primary function.

	  b. In response to AF/XOOT’s assertion that she has not completed any aircrew training, she states that she does have the experience as a result of completing 36 combat missions and has been assigned in the primary aircrew duty.  All training was waived for her first deployment; however, prior to her second deployment, she was afforded the opportunity to attend aircrew training, including survival, physiological, parachute, and egress training.  

	  c. Applicant indicates there are personnel in the Air Force that are awarded the aircrew badge and become disqualified, never fly again, but are authorized to keep the badge.  Because she did not receive all of the required training and her duties at home station are not primary aircrew, even though she has more flying time and combat experience, she is not authorized the badge.

The applicant’s complete response is at 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 error or injustice regarding the applicant’s request to be awarded the Officer Aircrew Member badge.  We note that the applicant’s requests for flight pay and documentation of her flying hours in her personnel records have been granted administratively.  We took notice of the applicant's complete submission in judging the merits of her request for award of the Office Aircrew Member badge; 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 that the applicant has not been the victim of an error or injustice.  Notwithstanding the applicant’s significant contributions as an airborne linguist, we are not persuaded that under current Air Force instructions, she qualifies for award of the Officer Aircrew Member badge.  Therefore, in the absence of evidence to the contrary, we find no compelling basis to recommend granting the relief sought in this application.

_________________________________________________________________

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 Docket Number BC-2004-00965 in Executive Session on 1 September 2004, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603:
The following documentary evidence was considered:

    Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 15 Mar 04, w/atchs.
    Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
    Exhibit C.  Memorandum, HQ USAF/XOOT, dated 
                23 Apr 04, w/atchs.
    Exhibit D.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 7 May 04.
    Exhibit E.  Memorandum, Applicant, dated 27 May 04,
                w/atchs.
    Exhibit F.  Memorandum, HQ USAF/XOOT, dated 20 Jul 04.
    Exhibit G.  Letter, AFBCMR, dated 22 Jul 04.
    Exhibit H.  Memorandum, Applicant, dated 19 Aug 04