AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
IN THE MATTER OF:
JUM 1 2 1998
DOCKET NUMBER: 97-01584
COUNSEL: NONE
HEARING DESIRED: YES
APPLICANT REOUESTS THAT:
His aviation service code (ASC) be changed from a 0 5 1 1
(Disqualification - - failure of nonrated aircrew member to attain
aircrew qualification) to rr9D11 (Active-nonrated aircrew member) .
., APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT*:
The reason for his failed attempt to upgrade to First Engineer on
C-141B aircraft can be attributed to many things: immaturity,
self-imposed pressure, and marital problems resulting in divorce.
Since those now resolved traumatic events, he has developed
professionally and personally by leaps and bounds.
Upon
ng career field he returned to aircraft
departure from
. While there, he immediately enrolled
maintenance at
in college cou
engthen his learning abilities. He then
achieved his Bachelor of Science Degree in Social Sciences,
graduating Summa Cum Laude from Troy State University. He is
halfway through his Masters Degree requirements in International
Relations. In 1996, he was named Noncommissioned Of
(NCO )
of the Year for t h e w Maintenance Squadron of the
ighter
Wing. He was also promoted to technical sergeant. He believes
he has corrected, permanently, any shortcomings related to his
flying disqualification. He now possesses the competency and
resources to succeed in the C-130 Flight Engineer career field.
He is absolutely certain he can be a reliable and worthy asset to
the C-130 community. His enthusiasm and commitment to this
opportunity are unparalleled.
Applicant's complete submission is attached at Exhibit A.
STATEMENT OF FACTS:
The applicant is currently serving in the Regular Air Force in
the grade of technical sergeant.
1
97- 01584
On 9 March 1992, a Flying Evaluation Board (FEB) recommended
applicant be suspended from flying activities and that no further
training be considered due to a history of substandard
performance and remission.
On 26 March 1992, the
Military Airlift Squadron Commander
requested applicant be
qualified from aviation service for
failure to maintain aircrew qualification in the C-141B, 11370C,
Flight Engineer career field. The commander recommended that
applicant be assigned ASC r10511 (Disqualification - failure of
nonrated aircrew member to attain aircrew qualification) and be
prohibited from wearing the aircrew member badge.
On 17 April 1992 applicant was involuntary disqualified from
aviation service. His Air Force specialty (AFSC) 113XOC, Flight
Engineer Specialist, was withdrawn and his secondary AFSC 4543OA,
Technical Order Distribution Office Monitor, was designated as
his primary AFSC.
AIR FORCE EVALUATION:
The Chief, Operational Training Division, DCS, Air and Space
Operations, HQ USAF/XOOT, reviewed this application and states
that applicant's ASC cannot be changed from disqualified to
active flying, as he is requesting. The findings of the FEB held
in March 1992 sufficiently justify applicant's disqualification.
Additionally, documentation provided to them from his initial
failure for upgrade to First Engineer was also sufficient to
disqualify him from training. Applicant may still apply for his
ASC to be changed from 05 to 0 0 in the future to seek retraining
into other aircrew specialties. However, he will not be allowed
to apply for reentry into the Flight Engineer career field (his
Aeronautical Orders and Master Personnel Records will be so
annotated) based on the previous disqualification.
They
recommend denial of applicant's request.
A complete copy of the evaluation is attached at Exhibit C.
APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:
On 17 November 1997, a copy of the Air Force evaluation was
forwarded to the applicant for review and response within 30
days. As of this date, no response has been received by this
off ice.
2
97 - 01584
THE BOARD CONCLUDES THAT:
1. The applicant has exhausted all remedies provided by existing
law or regulations.
2 . The application was timely filed.
3 . Sufficient relevant evidence has been presented to
demonstrate the existence of probable error or injustice. After
thoroughly reviewing the evidence of record and applicant's
contentions, we believe the applicant has resolved the
circumstances that disqualified him from enlisted flying duty.
The Board notes that the applicant was having a particularly
difficult time during the period prior to his disqualification
from aviation service. His immaturity, self-imposed pressure,
and marital problems seem to have contributed to his situation at
that time and it appears the applicant has overcome these
obstacles. The Board notes that since his disqualification in
1992 from aviation service, applicant has completed a Bachelor of
Science Degree, is working towards a Masters Degree in
International Relations, was named NCO of the Year and was
promoted to the grade of technical sergeant. Therefore, the
Board believes applicant's ASC should be changed to '9D" (Active -
nonrated aircrew member) rather than "05" (Disqualification -
failure of nonrated aircrew member to attain aircrew
qualification) and he should be given the opportunity to apply
for reentry into the flight engineer career field. Whether or
not he is successful will depend on the needs of the service and
our recommendation in no way guarantees that he will be allowed
to reenter the flight engineer career field. Therefore, the
Board recommends that applicant's record be corrected to the
extent indicated below.
THE BOARD RECOMMENDS THAT:
The pertinent military records of the Department of the Air Force
relating to APPLICANT, be corrected to show that his aviation
service code is 9D (Active-nonrated aircrew member) rather than
05 (Disqualification - failure of nonrated aircrew member to
attain aircrew qualification).
The following members of the Board considered this application in
Executive Session on 28 April 1998, under the provisions of AFI
36-2603 :
Mrs. Barbara A. Westgate, Panel Chair
Ms. Rita S. Looney, Member
Ms. Dorothy P. Loeb, Member
3
97- 01584
All members voted to correct the records, as recommended. The
following documentary evidence was considered:
Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 20 May 97, w/atchs.
Exhibit B. Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
Exhibit C. Letter, HQ USAF/XOOT, dated 20 Oct 97, w/atchs.
Exhibit D. Letters, AFBCMR, dated 10 Nov 97 and 17 Nov27.
Panel Chair
U
4
DEPARTMENT OF THE AIR FORCE
WASHINGTON, DC
JUN 1 2 1998
Office of the Assistant Secretary
AFBCMR 97-0 1584
MEMORANDUM FOR THE CHIEF OF STAFF
Having received and considered the recommendation of the Air Force Board for
Correction of Military Records and under the authority of Section 1552, Title 10, United States
Code (70A Stat 116), it is directed that:
ary records of the Department of the Air Force relating to-
be corrected to show that his aviation service code is 9D (Active-
r) rather than 05 (Disqualification - failure of nonrated aircrew member
to attain aircrew qualification).
Director
Air Force Review B
AF | BCMR | CY2013 | BC-2013-03394
Aeronautical orders are not related to travel orders and would have been required in addition to the travel orders. 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,...
Based upon an Aircrew Evaluation Board recommendation or an aircrew member's voluntary disqualification, any flying unit commander may disqualify any non-rated aircrew from aviation service. Additionally, the commander may recommend permanent disqualification and withdrawal of an aviation badge through command channels to the Major Command (MAJCOM). A complete copy of the advisory is at Exhibit C. ___________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR...
The applicant was medically disqualified following a period of 180 days from the date he was placed on DNIF status and his entitlement to ACIP was terminated effective 17 April 1994. (Exhibit D) ___________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: Applicant accepted the recommended re-entitlement date of 8 August 1994 for his ACIP. Given that his waiver expired 31 March 1995, even if a subsequent waiver was not granted, he would...
His AFSC of K1A171C was withdrawn because he was medically disqualified from performing flying duties. As such, he was medically disqualified from the AFSC and it was withdrawn. _________________________________________________________________ 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...
AF | BCMR | CY2004 | BC-2004-00965
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. 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...
AF | BCMR | CY2006 | BC-2005-02208
Based on a review of the facts, we agree she should have met an FEB after her elimination from FWQ training as an FEB would be the only correct action to evaluate retention in (or removal from) training, and qualification for continued aviation service. She failed two opportunities to complete fixed wing training and should have met an FEB. ____________________________________________________________ THE BOARD RECOMMENDS THAT: The pertinent military records of the Department of the Air...
The applicant provided a rebuttal dated 23 Feb 99. Based on the applicant’s appeal and at the request of HQ AFMC/DO, HQ AFMC/JA performed another legal review on 12 Mar 99 and concluded that the FEB findings and recommendations were legally sufficient and recommended denial of the applicant’s request for a new FEB. A review of the FEB transcripts and exhibits by HQ AFMC/JA shows no reason to believe that the board did not properly weigh all testimony presented in this case.
During the contested time period, a Safety Investigation Board (SIB) was conducted to investigate a mishap on 24 February 1999 involving an unmanned aerial vehicle (UAV) in Kuwait in which the applicant was the mishap pilot. They have difficulty seeing how a Safety Investigation Board (SIB) or SIB investigation can be construed as personal to the applicant or related to his own military records. _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT’S REVIEW OF AIR...
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: 00-02169 INDEX CODE: 128.14 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: His records be corrected to reflect that he was credited with three (3) sorties and 13.8 hours of flight time in the Air Force Specialty Code (AFSC) of 1A111C (Flight Engineer), the AFSC he held at time of the flights, for the period 17...
AF | BCMR | CY2006 | BC-2005-03012
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2005-03012 INDEX CODE: 107.00 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NOT INDICATED MANDATORY CASE COMPLETION DATE: 4 APR 07 _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: His records be corrected to reflect award of the Presidential Outstanding Unit Citation (PUC), the Korean Service Medal (KSM), and the Aviation Badge. A complete copy of the...