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 May 99 to 20 May 99.
He be reimbursed the $574.67 of Hazardous Duty Incentive Pay (HDIP)
which was recouped from him by the Defense Finance and Accounting
Service (DFAS).
_________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:
Since his AFSC at the time of the sorties was 1A1X1C (Flight
Engineer), the hours accrued should count towards that AFSC.
The recoupment of his flight pay was unjust and unwarranted. He
received a waiver to fly in his old AFSC to meet mission requirements.
He carried out his duty honorably and in accordance with the
commander’s direction. He is now being penalized for performing that
duty.
In support of his appeal, the applicant provided an expanded statement
and other documentation pertaining to the matter under review, to
include his travel orders, certificates of training, and flight
records.
Applicant’s complete submission is at Exhibit A.
_________________________________________________________________
STATEMENT OF FACTS:
Information extracted from the Personnel Data System (PDS) indicates
that the applicant is currently serving on active duty in the grade of
staff sergeant, having been promoted to that grade on 1 Nov 97. His
Total Active Federal Military Service Date (TAFMSD) is 10 Apr 89.
The remaining relevant facts pertaining to this application 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 Division, HQ USAF/XOOT, reviewed this
application and indicated that they recommend the three sorties and
13.8 hours accrued during the period 17 May 99 to 20 May 99 be
credited toward the applicant’s Airborne Maintenance Technician (AMT)
crew position versus the Flight Engineer crew position. Although the
applicant flew those hours after the award of the Flight Engineer Air
Force Specialty Code (AFSC), he did not perform duties as a Flight
Engineer. Therefore, he is not entitled to log hours against that
crew position. However, the accrued hours should be logged as an AMT.
In addition, the $574.67 of Hazardous Duty Incentive Pay (HDIP)
recouped by finance should be returned to him (Exhibit B).
_________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:
A copy of the Air Force evaluation was forwarded to applicant on 15
Dec 00 for review and response. 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. Sufficient relevant evidence has been presented to demonstrate the
existence of probable error or injustice warranting corrective action
regarding the applicant’s request that he be credited with three (3)
sorties and 13.8 hours of flight time, and that he be reimbursed
$574.67 of HDIP. Having carefully reviewed this application, we agree
with the recommendation of HQ USAF/XOOT and adopt their rationale as
the basis for our decision that the applicant has been the victim of
either an error or an injustice. In view of the above, we recommend
that the applicant’s records be corrected as indicated below.
4. Insufficient relevant evidence has been presented to demonstrate
the existence of probable error or injustice regarding the applicant’s
request that he be credited with the above sorties and hours as a
Flight Engineer. While we note that the applicant flew those hours
after the award of the Flight Engineer AFSC, it appears that he did
not perform duties as a Flight Engineer. Therefore, HQ USAF/XOOT has
indicated that he is not entitled to log hours against that crew
position. In view of the foregoing, and in the absence of evidence to
the contrary, we conclude that no basis exists to recommend favorable
action on the applicant’s request.
_________________________________________________________________
THE BOARD RECOMMENDS THAT:
The pertinent military records of the Department of the Air Force
relating to APPLICANT, be corrected to show that he was credited with
three (3) sorties and 13.8 hours of flight time as an Airborne
Maintenance Technician during the period 17 May 99 to 20 May 99; and,
that he was authorized to receive Hazardous Duty Incentive Pay by
competent authority.
_________________________________________________________________
The following members of the Board considered this application in
Executive Session on 1 Mar 01, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603:
Mr. Terry A. Yonkers, Panel Chair
Mr. George Franklin, Member
Mr. Roger Willmeth, Member
All members voted to correct the records, as recommended. The
following documentary evidence was considered:
Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 9 Jun 00, w/atchs.
Exhibit B. Letter, HQ USAF/XOOT, dated 12 Nov 00.
Exhibit C. Letter, SAF/MIBR, dated 15 Dec 00.
TERRY A. YONKERS
Panel Chair
AFBCMR 00-02169
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:
The pertinent military records of the Department of the Air
Force relating to , be corrected to show that he was credited with
three (3) sorties and 13.8 hours of flight time as an Airborne
Maintenance Technician during the period 17 May 99 to 20 May 99; and,
that he was authorized to receive Hazardous Duty Incentive Pay by
competent authority.
JOE G. LINEBERGER
Director
Air Force Review Boards Agency
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...
AFBCMR 99-01385 INDEX NUMBER: 128.04 MEMORANDUM OF CONSIDERATION OF APPLICATION BEFORE THE AFBCMR SUBJECT: Having carefully reviewed this application, we agree with the recommendation of the Air Force office of primary responsibility and adopt the rationale expressed as the basis for our decision that the applicant has been the victim of either an error or an injustice. Therefore, under the authority delegated in AFI 36-2603, the applicant's records will be corrected as set forth in the...
AFBCMR 99-01385 INDEX NUMBER: 128.04 MEMORANDUM OF CONSIDERATION OF APPLICATION BEFORE THE AFBCMR SUBJECT: Having carefully reviewed this application, we agree with the recommendation of the Air Force office of primary responsibility and adopt the rationale expressed as the basis for our decision that the applicant has been the victim of either an error or an injustice. Therefore, under the authority delegated in AFI 36-2603, the applicant's records will be corrected as set forth in the...
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...
AF | BCMR | CY2004 | BC-2004-00831
The applicant explains that their recommendation would deny him credit for the NVG time for his 186 hours of HH-53C time and only 9.5 hours of NVG time out of almost 750 hours flown on the MH-53H. They indicate that they concur with the applicant’s request to correct his record to reflect 55% of his total flying time in the MH-53J, MH- 53H, and HH-53C as Primary Night and also NVG time. Therefore, we recommend that the applicant’s records be corrected as indicated below.
On 15 Jun 98, the applicant was notified by his commander that he was suspending him from aviation service, effective 22 Dec 97. During this time period, the applicant, through no fault of his own, obviously continued to receive flight pay as he had not been suspended from aviation service. _________________________________________________________________ THE BOARD RECOMMENDS THAT: The pertinent military records of the Department of the Air Force relating to APPLICANT, be corrected to show...
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...
AF | BCMR | CY1999 | BC-1998-00969
United States Air Forces in Europe (USAFE) major command (MAJCOM) denied this award on grounds that he was a flight surgeon and thus considered no more than a passenger on these flights, while other flight surgeons (assigned to different commands) were awarded this medal during the same period for participating on the same flight missions. HQ USAFE supplemented this regulation with additional criteria, to be applied to regularly assigned aircrew members, but not to flight surgeons. ...
United States Air Forces in Europe (USAFE) major command (MAJCOM) denied this award on grounds that he was a flight surgeon and thus considered no more than a passenger on these flights, while other flight surgeons (assigned to different commands) were awarded this medal during the same period for participating on the same flight missions. HQ USAFE supplemented this regulation with additional criteria, to be applied to regularly assigned aircrew members, but not to flight surgeons. ...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2009 | 20090012295
The applicant provides copies of his DD Form 214 (Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty), a DA Form 4186 (Medical Recommendation for Flying Duty), three leave and earnings statements (LES), a request for hazardous duty orders, orders terminating his hazardous duty, three DA Forms 759-E (Individual Flight Record and Certificate - Army), and three pages of a personal record of his flights. His DD Form 214 shows his awards as the Army Service Ribbon, the National Defense Service...