RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2013-03394 XXXXXXX COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: YES ________________________________________________________________ THE APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: His travel orders; T-12469, T-3590, T-11720 be changed to aeronautical orders. ________________________________________________________________ THE APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: While assigned to the Aeromedical Research Function, Brooks AFB, TX from 28 Nov 90 to 26 Dec 93, he should have been on aeronautical orders. He performed official duties while in- flight to include testing of aeromedical equip and in-flight medical care capabilities in the aeromedical evacuation system. His desired end-goal is to be awarded Non-Rated Officer Aircrew wings. He is not seeking (nor will he seek) back flight pay or any other flight related entitlements. Personnel at Armstrong Laboratory did not have the capability of loading flight crew orders as evidenced by the Aeromedical Evacuation Flight Crew flying on the same orders as he flew. He received a flight physical, chamber qualification training and flight egress/safety training. He was responsible for performing test and evaluation of aeromedical evacuation equipment, medical systems, devices and associated in-flight medical care in the airborne environment. He flew missions on the C-130, C-141 and C-9 aircrafts. In support of his appeal, the applicant provides copies of his travel orders, with vouchers; Invited Medical Personnel (IMP) message and various other supporting documents. The applicant’s complete submission, with attachments, is at Exhibit A. ________________________________________________________________ STATEMENT OF FACTS: During the period under review, the applicant was assigned to the Armstrong Laboratory, Brooks AFB, TX, from 28 Nov 90 – 26 Dec 93. He was assigned duties as a Biomedical Research Engineer. ________________________________________________________________ THE AIR FORCE EVALUATION: AF/A3O-AIF recommends denial. Based on the fact that the applicant has not provided substantial evidence that corroborates he held an Air Force Specialty authorized for flying status In Accordance With (IAW) 60-1, Flight Management; nor did he meet at least one of the requirements listed in AFR 60-13, Aviation Service, Aeronautical Ratings, and Badges, for award of the officer aircrew member badge. The United States Air Force aviation badges symbolize attainment of a high degree of professionalism in a flying specialty and are permanently awarded only to those aircrew members who, by virtue of extensive training, experience and assignment to primary aircrew duty are considered part of the career flying force. Over the years, the prestige of the aviation badges has been carefully and closely guarded through consistent and strict adherence to the award criteria. The applicant’s travel orders were authorized by Mobility [sic] Airlift Command (MAC) in an IMP status. IMP status allowed medical personnel to fly for orientation and indoctrination to the MAC aeromedical evacuation system and observation of its inflight medical care capabilities. IMP status on an aircraft was contingent upon the availability of a seat which is not required for a patient or crew member (i.e. noninterference basis). IMP members were not authorized aeronautical orders, but would have been included on the flight authorization allowing them on the aircraft. IMP personnel would have been required to accomplish a basic flight physical, physiological training (altitude chamber), and egress training before being authorized on a mission. Furthermore, the documentation did not validate that he was assigned to a duty position with an AFSC prefix G indicating his primary full-time duty was to be on an aircraft to accomplish his primary mission. Additionally, aeronautical orders were published by the Host Aviation Resource Management office. If the applicant was in a position requiring frequent and regular flight, MAC would have ensured his orders would have been published prior to the performance of flight duty. Aeronautical orders are not related to travel orders and would have been required in addition to the travel orders. IAW AFR 60-1, paragraph 2-8b., Nonrated Aircrew Members – “These individuals’ primary full-time duty is to be on board the aircraft to accomplish the primary mission. Nonrated officer aircrew members must be assigned to duty positions with an Air Force Service Code (AFSC) prefix of G.” Paragraph 1-6 states “Air Force members on active duty may be ordered to make official flights when in the best interest of the Air Force. They are not entitled to incentive pay unless placed on aeronautical orders that require them to perform specific inflight duties on a frequent and regular basis, i.e., fly a minimum of four hours per month. Members who are properly qualified and directed to perform specific inflight duties, not on a frequent and regular basis, may be ordered to do so using a flight authorization.” AFR 60-13, paragraph 7-5 states “Nonrated officers are authorized to wear the officer aircrew member badge while assigned to and performing aircrew duties in a designated MSL position identified by a G, K, or M prefix duty AFSC.” The complete A3O-AIF evaluation is at Exhibit B. ________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF THE AIR FORCE EVALUATION: A copy of the Air Force evaluation was forwarded to the applicant on 29 Oct 13 for review and comment within 30 days. As of this date, no response has been received by this office (Exhibit C). ________________________________________________________________ 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 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. In view of the above and in the absence of evidence to the contrary, we find no 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(s) involved. Therefore, the request for a hearing is not favorably considered. ________________________________________________________________ THE BOARD DETERMINES THAT: The applicant be notified the evidence presented did not demonstrate the existence of material error or injustice; the application was denied without a personal appearance; and 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-2013-03394 in Executive Session on 6 May 2014, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603: , Panel Chair , Member , Member Although XXXXXXXXXX chaired the panel, in view of her unavailability, XXXXXXXXXX has signed as Acting Panel Chair. The following documentary evidence was considered: Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 6 Jun 13, w/atchs. Exhibit B. Letter, AF/A3O-AIF, dated 20 Sep 13. Exhibit C. Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 29 Oct 13. 1 2