RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
             AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF:                 DOCKET NUMBER:  00-01976
                       INDEX CODE:  107.00, 115.04
      APPLICANT              COUNSEL:  NONE

                       HEARING DESIRED:  YES

___________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

Aeronautical Order 0112, which prohibited his wear of the non-rated officer
aircrew badge, be revoked  and  Aeronautical  Order  1223  authorizing  him
permanent award of the badge be reinstated.
___________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

He completed all training, flying and other related  duties  required  to
qualify for permanent award of the Non-rated Officer Aircrew Badge.   His
records of qualifications for the  permanent  award  of  the  badge  were
certified by the HOSM office at Tinker AFB, OK and the  request  for  the
Aeronautical Order (AO 1223, 31 Dec 98)  was  approved  by  his  squadron
commander.  He feels that the AO 0112, 26 Oct 99, citing AFI 11-402, para
8.7.3 as authority for prohibiting his wear of the badge is without basis
and is unjust.

In support of his request the applicant submits a personal  statement,  a
statement of from his counsel, AF Form 475 (Educational/Training Report),
copies of selected Officer  Performance  Reports  (OPR's),  and  numerous
letters of character reference.

A complete copy of the submission is at Exhibit A.

___________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

On 4 April 1978, the applicant was appointed a  second  lieutenant,  Reserve
of the Air Force, and was voluntarily ordered to  extended  active  duty  on
that same date.  He was credited with prior enlisted service,  resulting  in
a Total Active Federal Military Service (TAFMSD) of 1 August 1964.   He  was
integrated into the  Regular  Air  Force  on  2  March  1982  and  has  been
progressively promoted to the grade of  lieutenant  colonel,  effective  and
with a date of rank of 1 August 1995.

The relevant  facts  pertaining  to  this  application  extracted  from  the
applicant's available military records are contained in the letter  prepared
by the appropriate office of the Air Force.  Accordingly, there is  no  need
to recite these facts in this Record of Proceedings.

___________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

The Operational Training Branch, USAF/XOOT,  reviewed  the  application  and
recommended denial.  XOOT states that AFI  11-402  defines  the  process  of
aircrew disqualification for rated and non-rated  crewmembers.   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).   With  MAJCOM  concurrence,
aviation  orders  are   imposed   assigning   Aviation   Service   Code   05
(Disqualified-failure to attain aircrew qualification).  In this  case,  the
commander requested an Aircrew Evaluation Board, but the  applicant  elected
to abdicate his rights to  go  before  a  board  and  state  his  case.   He
voluntarily disqualified himself from aviation service,  which  resulted  in
his permanent disqualification.  The AFI affords the applicant this  option;
however, the commander still retains the authority to prohibit the  wear  of
the aviation badge.  The applicant's commander acted within  the  guidelines
established to ensure consistent policy on disqualification was applied.

XOOT indicates that the applicant, not the Air Force, initiated his  removal
from aviation service and he chose not to take advantage of the Air  Force's
system to disprove the allegations that led to his prohibition from  wearing
the aircrew badge.  The permanent award of the aircrew badge is a  privilege
and not a right.  Therefore, XOOT does not recommend  reinstatement  of  the
order authorizing the applicant permanent  wear  of  the  non-rated  officer
aircrew badge.

A complete copy of the advisory is at Exhibit C.

___________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

The  applicant  reviewed  the  Air  Force   evaluation   and   states   that
ramifications  which  would  have  resulted  in  his   refutation   of   his
commander's statements and others to which he referred would  have  put  his
career  in  serious  political  jeopardy   and   negatively   impacted   his
effectiveness as a senior officer, crew leader and  Mission  Crew  Commander
(MCC).  Neither his  commander  nor  his  staff  ever  advised  him  of  any
concerns they held about his mission  crew  commander  performance  nor  the
inaccurate and incomplete information which led to his commander's  decision
to downgrade his current mission readiness status.

The applicant states that he saw no advantage to going  before  a  board  to
point the finger of blame and  lodge  counter-charges.   He  considered  his
decision to forego meeting a  board  and  requesting  disqualification  from
aviation service as serving the  greater  good  and  best  interest  of  all
parties (Exhibit E).

___________________________________________________________________

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  probable  error  or  injustice.   We  took  notice   of   the
applicant's  complete  submission  in  judging  the  merits  of  this  case;
however, after a thorough review  of  the  applicant's  submission  and  his
military records,  we  found  that  there  was  no  evidence  provided  that
supported his contention that his voluntary disqualification  from  aviation
service was insufficient justification for prohibiting his wear of the  non-
rated  officer  aircrew  badge.   The  applicant's  commander  requested  an
Aircrew Evaluation Board, however the applicant failed to take advantage  of
the Air  Force's  system  to  disprove  the  allegations  that  led  to  his
voluntary disqualification from aircrew service. The commander acted  within
his authority and the guidelines established in recommending  withdrawal  of
the applicant's aviation badge.  There was no evidence  that  the  commander
abused his discretionary authority.  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 probable 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 in  Executive
Session on 6 December 2000, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603:

      Mr. Teddy L. Houston, Panel Chair
      Mr. Lawrence M. Groner, Member
      Ms. Diana Arnold, Member

The following documentary evidence was considered:

    Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 18 Jul 00 w/atchs.
    Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
    Exhibit C.  Letter, USAF/XOOT, dated 1 Sep 00.
    Exhibit D.  Letter, SAF/MIBR, dated 22 Sep 00.
    Exhibit E.  Applicant's Response, dated 22 Oct 00, w/atch.




                                   TEDDY L. HOUSTON
                                   Panel Chair