RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS
IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2003-00208
INDEX NUMBER:
XXXXXXXXXXXX COUNSEL: None
XXX-XX-XXXX HEARING DESIRED: No
_________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:
His records clearly indicate that he was medically disqualified from
flying (deletion of Aeronautical Rating from Officer Surf) so that a
lack of flying hours is not held against him during promotion boards.
_________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:
In support of his appeal, applicant provides a copy of an AF Form 422,
Physical Profile Serial Report, that indicates “Member is disqualified
from flying duty since 2 Apr 01. Recommending member be retrained
into new AFSC since he can no longer be a pilot.”
The applicant’s complete submission, with attachment, is at Exhibit A.
_________________________________________________________________
STATEMENT OF FACTS:
The applicant is presently serving on active duty in the grade of
captain. The remaining relevant facts pertaining to this application
are contained in the evaluation prepared by the appropriate office of
the Air Force found at Exhibit C.
_________________________________________________________________
AIR FORCE EVALUATION:
HQ USAF/XOOT recommends denial of the applicant’s request. Although
an officer medically disqualified for aviation service is no longer
qualified for advanced ratings, the ratings earned up to the
disqualification period remain valid, unless revoked for cause.
Medically disqualified rated officers retain “rated expertise” and
therefore may still be considered part of the Air Force rated
inventory for assignment to a rated job. Key to identifying these
officers for these rated staff jobs is their current rating.
Maintaining rated data in the personnel and aviation resource
management systems facilitates the assignment process.
They reviewed the applicant’s SURF to insure that it displays accurate
data. He is assigned an aviation service code 03, the code used to
identify medically disqualified aircrew members.
The complete evaluation is at Exhibit C.
_________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:
A copy of the Air Force evaluation was forwarded to the applicant on 7
Mar 03 for review and comment within 30 days. To date, a response has
not been received.
_________________________________________________________________
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 their rationale as the
basis for our conclusion that the applicant has not been the victim of
an error or injustice. 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 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 Docket Number BC-2003-
00208 in Executive Session on 21 May 2003, under the provisions of AFI
36-2603:
Mr. Thomas J. Topolski, Panel Chair
Ms. Marilyn Thomas, Member
Ms. Ann-Cecile McDermott, Member
The following documentary evidence was considered:
Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 7 Jan 03, w/atchs.
Exhibit B. Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
Exhibit C. Memorandum, HQ USAF/XOOT, dated 26 Feb 03.
Exhibit D. Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 7 Mar 03.
THOMAS J. TOPOLSKI
Panel Chair
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-2005-03755
The Air Force Medical Service position, as stated in a letter dated 25 Jun 03, was that testing was not considered disqualifying in and of itself. The complete evaluation is at Exhibit D. _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: In his response to the Air Force evaluations, the applicant notes that AFI 48-123 disqualifies flyers from flying duty with a personal or family history of Huntington’s Chorea and that a waiver may...
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 | CY2003 | BC-2002-03952
During that time frame he lost 2 months due to extended Duty Not Including Flying (DNIF) and because his last flight in March 1991 was before the 15th of the month. All an officer can be expected to do is contact his assignments officer, discuss options, volunteer for what is available, and serve where assigned. _________________________________________________________________ THE BOARD DETERMINES THAT: The applicant be notified that the evidence presented did not demonstrate the existence...
AF | BCMR | CY2005 | BC-2004-03922
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2004-03922 INDEX NUMBER: 100.00 XXXXXXX COUNSEL: None XXXXXXX HEARING DESIRED: Yes MANDATORY CASE COMPLETION DATE: 22 Jun 06 _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: His “date departed last duty station” be adjusted from 13 Jun 89 to 15 Jun 89. They also must have performed OFDA-creditable flying within three months of the departure...
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...
_________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: The applicant indicated that the first and only notification he received regarding adding UPT gate months was AFPC’s Jul 95 letter. As a result of the policy change, the applicant had his records adjusted and fell one month short of his third gate under the ACIA of 1974. Prior to the policy change, the applicant fell 11 months short of his third gate credit.
AF | BCMR | CY2002 | BC-2002-01805
The remaining relevant facts pertaining to this application, extracted from the applicant's military records, are contained in the letter prepared by the appropriate office of the Air Force. Therefore, Andrews AFB Flight Management Office (FMO) was correct to medically disqualify applicant upon receipt of his Flight Record Folder (FRF) effective 11 May 2001, 365 days from the 11 May 2000 Duty Not to Include Flying (DNIF) date. ...
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.
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...