RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS
IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2004-00831
INDEX NUMBER: 115.00
XXXXXXX COUNSEL: None
XXXXXXX HEARING DESIRED: No
_________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:
His flight records be updated to reflect a more accurate total of his
night vision goggle (NVG) time.
_________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:
After a review of his flying hours, he discovered that his NVG time
was incorrect. He attributes this to the hours not being transferred
to the new tracking system when a conversion was made in 1997.
He has provided a fair estimate of the hours that should be added to
his record for each applicable airframe.
In support of his appeal, applicant has provided a copy of his
Individual Flight History report and his Flying History report.
The applicant’s complete submission, with attachments, is at Exhibit
A.
_________________________________________________________________
STATEMENT OF FACTS:
The applicant is serving on active duty in the grade of master
sergeant as the A Flight Award Superintendent/MH-53. According to
records provided by the applicant, he has the following Primary Night
and NVG time by indicated airframe:
Primary Night NVG Deficit
MH-53M 336.4 353 none
MH-53J 1264.4 405.7 858.7
MH-53H 9.5 0 9.5
HH-53C 0 0 0
HH-53B 0 0 0
CH-53C 0 0 0
HH-3E 0 0
CH-3E 0 0
Examiner’s note: HQ USAF/XOOT advises that the applicant should only
be given credit for NVG time when he has Primary Night time since NVGs
are only worn at night. They also advise that the applicant’s NVG
time should not exceed his Primary Night time. Based on this type of
analysis, the applicant would only be credited with hours in the MH-
53J and MH-53H.
_________________________________________________________________
AIR FORCE EVALUATION:
HQ USAF/XOOT recommends that the applicant’s NVG time be adjusted to
match his Primary Night time in each of the requested aircraft. In
accordance with AFI 11-401, paragraph 3.5.4, NVG time is the portion
of flight time logged while wearing NVGs. In the absence of any
documentation, the only equitable source is the applicant’s Primary
Night time hours. MH-53 aircrew members typically perform duties
wearing NVGs for the portion of flight logged under night conditions.
The applicant did not log any nighttime in the HH-53C, HH-53B, or CH-
53C. Therefore, they recommend that his hours be adjusted in the MH-
53J and MH-53H to match his Primary Night time hours.
The complete evaluation is at Exhibit C.
_________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:
In his response to the Air Force evaluation, the applicant states that
he failed to request correction of both his total nighttime and NVG
time flying hours. He asks if the Board can correct both at the same
time. The applicant indicates that HQ USAF/XOOT’s recommendation to
only give him credit for NVG time based on the nighttime logged falls
far short of the total hours he has. 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.
The applicant’s complete response is at Exhibit E.
_________________________________________________________________
ADDITIONAL AIR FORCE EVALUATION:
Pursuant to the Board’s request HQ USAF/XOOT provided an additional
advisory based on the applicant’s response to the initial advisory.
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. They conducted a
review of several MH-53 crewmembers, which revealed inconsistencies
in logging of Primary Night and NVG time dating back more than 20
years. Their review highlighted that most non-rated aircrew members
did not log night time when flying at night due to a lack of previous
guidance requiring nighttime. Additionally, the Aviation Resource
Management System (ARMS) was not capable of logging NVG time until
1997. They recommend that the applicant’s records be corrected to
reflect the following aircraft times:
MH-53J HH-53C MH-53H
Primary Night 1785 102 412
NVG 1785 102 412
The complete evaluation is at Exhibit F.
_________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF ADDITIONAL AIR FORCE EVALUATION:
A copy of the additional Air Force evaluation was forwarded to the
applicant on 21 Jun 04 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. Sufficient relevant evidence has been presented to demonstrate
the existence of error or injustice. We concur with the
recommendations of HQ USAF/XOOT to correct the applicant’s flying
time in the Aviation Resource Management System and in his flight
record folder. We note that the applicant amended his request after
reviewing their recommendation in the initial advisory. Since he has
not raised any additional issues based on their recommendations
regarding his amended request, we assume that the new recommendations
are acceptable. Therefore, we recommend that the applicant’s records
be corrected as 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 flight record
folder and the Aviation Resource Management System (ARMS) reflect
Primary Night and Night Vision Goggle (NVG) flying hours as follows:
a. MH-53J. Primary Night: 1785; NVG: 1785
b. HH-53C. Primary Night: 102; NVG: 102
c. MH-53H. Primary Night: 412; NVG: 412
_________________________________________________________________
The following members of the Board considered Docket Number BC-2004-
00831 in Executive Session on 21 July 2004, under the provisions of
AFI 36-2603:
Mr. Michael K. Gallogly, Panel Chair
Ms. Martha J. Evans, Member
Mr. James W. Russell, III, Member
All members voted to correct the records, as recommended. The
following documentary evidence was considered:
Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 5 Mar 04.
Exhibit B. Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
Exhibit C. Memorandum, HQ USAF/XOOT, dated 30 Mar 04.
Exhibit D. Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 2 Apr 04.
Exhibit E. Letter, Applicant, dated 20 Apr 04.
Exhibit F. Memorandum, HQ USAF/XOOT, dated 24 May 04.
Exhibit G. Letter, AFBCMR, dated 21 Jun 04.
MICHAEL K. GALLOGLY
Panel Chair
AFBCMR BC-2004-00831
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 XXXXXXX, XXXXXXX, be corrected to show that his
flight record folder and the Aviation Resource Management System
(ARMS) reflect Primary Night and Night Vision Goggle (NVG) flying
hours as follows:
a. MH-53J. Primary Night: 1785; NVG: 1785
b. HH-53C. Primary Night: 102; NVG: 102
c. MH-53H. Primary Night: 412; NVG: 412
JOE G. LINEBERGER
Director
Air Force Review Boards Agency
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 | 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 | CY2005 | BC-2004-01303A
_________________________________________________________________ STATEMENT OF FACTS: On 19 Aug 04, the Board considered and denied an application pertaining to the applicant, in which he requested that his records be corrected to reflect award of the Aircrew Member Badge and the addition of his C-123 flying hours to his flight records. Applicant’s complete submission, with attachments, is at Exhibit G. _________________________________________________________________ AIR FORCE...
AF | BCMR | CY2004 | BC-2004-01303
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2004-01303 INDEX CODES: 107.00, 115.00 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: His records be corrected to reflect award of the Aircrew Member Badge and the addition of his C-123 flying hours to his flight records. _________________________________________________________________ STATEMENT OF...
CG | BCMR | OER and or Failure of Selection | 2007-124
7 ○ The following written comment in the OER supports the mark of 3: “Displayed lack of motivation & leadership to upgrade to Aircraft Cdr, well beyond the normally expected timeline of peers; aviation status terminated, reassigned to duties not involving flight ops.” The applicant stated that he was designated as an HH-60 First Pilot on December 4, 2002, and that the “normal progression from HH-60 First Pilot to Aircraft Commander is 18 months.” By May 20, 2003, he alleged, less than six...
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...
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. ...
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 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...