RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2011-03555 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO ________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: She be permanently awarded aeronautical wings. ________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: She was an aircrew member with the 315 Aeromedical Evacuation Service (AES), in the Air Force Reserves, and was eligible to wear aeronautical wings. Her unit did not update her records to reflect authorization of aeronautical wings for follow-on to her next destination. Until recently, she wore her wings not knowing it was not entered in the military personnel system. She has an aeronautical order awarding the basic aircrew badge under her former name. In support of her request, the applicant submits a copy of the record of her name change. The applicant’s complete submission, with attachments, is at Exhibit A. ________________________________________________________________ STATEMENT OF FACTS: The applicant is currently serving in the Kentucky Air National Guard (ANG) in the grade of Technical Sergeant, E-6, with a Date of Rank of 1 April 2003. On 22 May 2000 the applicant’s petition to change her name was granted. By letter dated 15 December 2011, NGB/A1PS requested that the applicant provide an AF Form 8, Certificate of Aircrew Qualification, or other documentation in order to determine if she is authorized to wear the aeronautical wings. ________________________________________________________________ AIR FORCE EVALUATION: NGB/A3O recommends denial. A3O states they do not have documentation that the applicant completed training, became qualified (indicated on an AF Form 8) or was eligible to be permanently awarded aeronautical wings. The complete NGB/A3O evaluation is at Exhibit C. NGB/A1PS concurs with the NGB/A3O advisory and recommends disapproval of the applicant’s request due to lack of documentation to validate her claim. The complete NGB/A1PS evaluation is at Exhibit D. ________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: In an undated later, the applicant states she is resubmitting paperwork for another evaluation to be completed. She has been working with ANG personnel to try to retrieve her aeronautical orders. Upon contacting the 315 AES, she discovered that her records were not in their new electronic database and may have been destroyed in either a flood or fire. She submits documents extracted from her personnel records. The applicant’s complete response, with attachments, is at Exhibit F. ________________________________________________________________ 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. We took notice of the applicant's complete submission 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 the applicant has not been the victim of an error or injustice. The board notes that NGB/A1PS confirms that the applicant graduated from Aeromedical Evacuation Technician Course; however, in order to determine if she is authorized to wear the Airmen aircrew member basic badge further documentation (AF Form 8) is required. Based on the applicant’s rebuttal, it appears she is taking the steps necessary to have her request properly evaluated by the appropriate office. Therefore, , we find no 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 this application BC-2011-03555 in Executive Session on 28 June 2012, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603: The following documentary evidence was considered: Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 31 August 2011, w/atchs. Exhibit B. Applicant's Master Personnel Records. Exhibit C. Letter, NGB/A3O, dated 12 March 2012. Exhibit D. Letter, NGB/A1PS, dated 16 March 2012. Exhibit E. Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 11 May 2012. Exhibit F. Letter, Applicant, not dated, w/atchs.