RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2014-00092 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: His records be corrected to reflect award of the Air Force Aircrew Member Badge. APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: He participated in frequent and regular aerial flights during an alternating period of almost two years. The applicant’s complete submission, with attachments, is at Exhibit A. STATEMENT OF FACTS: On 11 Mar 58, the applicant enlisted in the Regular Air Force. On 30 Sep 79, the applicant was relieved from active duty and transferred to the Retired Reserve, effective 1 Oct 79. He was credited with 21 years, 6 months, and 20 days of total active service. The applicant’s DD Form 214, Report of Separation from Active Duty, dated 30 Sep 79, lists his Primary Specialty Number and Title as 73490 (Social Actions Superintendent), Secondary Specialty Number and Title as T32570 (Automatic Flight Control Systems Technician), and his Duty Air Force Specialty Code (DAFSC) as 73470B (Social Actions Technician, Drug/Alcohol Abuse). AIR FORCE EVALUATION: AF/A3O-AIF recommends denial indicating there is no evidence of an error or an injustice. The applicant was a non-crew member and did not hold a DAFSC to be considered first priority personnel which is the requirement to be awarded the Aircrew Member Badge. The Aircrew Member Badge was governed by Air Force Manual (AFM) 35-13, Flying Status, Aeronautical Ratings, Designations and Parachute Jump Status, dated 10 Sep 62, Chapter 5. IAW paragraph 5-9a, "The commander of any Air Force activity may authorize, by orders, enlisted members of his command to wear the aircrew member badge, provided that the individual:" (1) "Has qualified for and holds a principal duty assignment in a First Priority (crew member) AFSC as authorized in paragraph 5-6a. The badge is to be worn only as long as the individual remains in this status.” Furthermore, paragraph 5-6a states, "First Priority personnel (crew members)…. This designation applies to flight airmen who hold a principal duty assignment in the AFSCs identified by the prefix "A" and listed in AFM 35-1, [sic]. Airmen crew members will be placed on indefinite flying status as long as they satisfactorily perform their duties, remain physically qualified, are assigned to an authorized Unit Manning Document (UMD) aircrew position (identified by the prefix "A") which requires duties as a crew member and participate in frequent and regular aerial flights. According to the documentation provided by the applicant, the DAFSCs he held (T32570, T32550, 734708, T32570C) are not considered First Priority personnel, which is a requirement to be awarded the wear of the Aircrew Member Badge. None of his DAFSCs had an "A" prefix which identifies him as a First Priority crew member. Although some of the documentation provided, such as his AF Form I 042, Medical Recommendation for Flying Duty, has his duty title listed as a Flight Engineer, he was never awarded the Flight Engineer AFSC. Also, the documentation provided clearly states that he was a non-crew member. The guidance that the applicant references in his request, AFM 35-13, Chapter 5, paragraph 5-12b and 6b, has nothing to do with the Aircrew Member Badge, instead it is referencing how long orders are effective. The complete A3O-AIF evaluation is at Exhibit C. APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: The applicant asserts that AF/A3O-AIF erred in their evaluation of his case. The dates of the regulations and prefixes referenced regarding his flying status are erroneous. He conducted his flying from 1 Sep 60 through 28 Nov 62 and his flying period was not covered under AFM 35-13, dated 10 Sep 62, as referenced by the OPR. There were no prefixes given at that time for flight mechanics and Auto-Pilot/Compass System Repairmen were required flight members on the T-29B, C, and D aircraft at that time. Additionally, the OPR cites an erroneous AFSC that he held during the requested period which was actually an Instructor rating and a new AFSC that he did not receive until 15 Mar 65. He held AFSCs 42353 and 42353C during the requested period not AFSC T32550 as cited by the OPR. Even the flying crew chiefs did not have prefix identifiers at that time on T-29 aircraft but his AFSC would often trade flights with the crew chiefs, as they accomplished mostly the same thing. Furthermore, the T-29 aircraft was a unique aircraft and he provides the Technical Order (T.O.) covering the flight mechanics and their duties. There was no special identifier for the flight mechanics flying missions, so they were listed as "Z" status and non-flight members because they were not flying officers; however, in reality they were flight crew members. In further support of his request, he submits a copy of his AF Form 4, Chronological Listing of Service, which details most of his AFSC changes. Lastly, he requests the Board review the uniqueness of the flying requirements of his AFSC in the T-29 Aircraft, and grant him the Air Force Crew Member Badge (Exhibit E). THE BOARD CONCLUDES THAT: 1. The applicant has exhausted all remedies provided by existing law or regulations. 2. The application was not timely filed; however, it is in the interest of justice to excuse the failure to timely file. 3. Insufficient relevant evidence has been presented to demonstrate the existence of an error or injustice. After carefully reviewing the evidence of record, to include the technical orders, we do not believe relief is warranted. While the applicant contends the Air Force Manual cited by the OPR does not cover the period he served, he has not provided sufficient evidence to show that the applicable guidance used at the time, AFM 35-13, dated 10 Sep 62, was in error. Although the applicant's states AF/A3O-AIF erred in their evaluation of his case, other than his uncorroborated assertions he not provided substantial evidence which, in our opinion, successfully refutes the assessment of his case by the Air Force Offices of Primary Responsibility. Therefore, we agree with the opinion and recommendation of the AF OPR and adopt the rationale expressed as the basis for our conclusion that the applicant has failed to sustain his burden of proof of either an error or an injustice. Therefore in the absence of evidence to the contrary we find no basis to grant any of the relief sought in this application. 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-2014-00092 in Executive Session on 21 Oct 14 under the provisions of AFI 36-2603: , Panel Chair , Member , Member The following documentary evidence pertaining to AFBCMR Docket Number BC-2014-00092 was considered: Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 7 Jan 14, w/atchs. Exhibit B. Applicant's Available Master Personnel Records. Exhibit C. Memorandum, AF/A3O-AIF, dated 5 Mar 14. Exhibit D. Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 24 Mar 14. Exhibit E. Letter, Applicant, dated 27 Mar 14, w/atch.