RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
         AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF:      DOCKET NUMBER:  BC-2004-00965
            INDEX NUMBER:  115.00
      XXXXXXX    COUNSEL:  None

      XXXXXXX    HEARING DESIRED:  No

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

She be paid flight pay for the period 1 Nov 01 through Jan 02.

She be given credit for flight hours on her personnel records at AFPC.

She be awarded the Officer Aircrew Member badge.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

She performed aircrew duties in a temporary duty (TDY)  status  as  an
Airborne Linguist.  Due to the urgency  and  critical  nature  of  the
duties, the Air Staff verbally waived all aircrew training.  Due to an
administrative oversight, her assigned  unit  failed  to  process  the
necessary paperwork for aeronautical orders, which resulted in  denial
of the entitlements requested above.  On  a  subsequent  TDY  for  the
period May through Jul 03, her paperwork was  properly  processed  and
she received flight pay and credit for flying hours.  However, she did
not receive the aircrew badge.

Before her second deployment,  she  was  medically  disqualified  from
flying, but the flight doctor made the decision that she could  go  on
the mission in an operational support status.  Although  she  did  the
same job, she was advised that she  was  not  authorized  the  aircrew
badge.

In support of her request, the applicant provides letters  of  support
from her chain of command, copies of  flight  orders,  and  her  prior
efforts to get the requested entitlements.

The applicant’s complete submission, with attachments, is  at  Exhibit
A.

_________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

The applicant is a personnel officer presently serving on active  duty
in the grade of first lieutenant  as  Group  Executive  in  a  Mission
Support Group.  Her Total Active Federal Military Service Date  is  27
Dec 85.  However, she was commissioned on 5 Apr  01  through  the  Air
Force Officer Training School.  The applicant is rated  as  proficient
in listening, speaking, and reading the language Pushtu-Afghan.

_________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

HQ USAF/XOOT recommends denial of the applicant’s request for award of
the Aircrew Member badge.  The applicant’s status during the period of
her deployment should have been  classified  as  Operational  Support.
Operational Support members are considered non-crew  members  and  are
not entitled to award of the Aircrew Member badge  or  aircrew  member
incentive pay.  They have directed an administrative correction of the
applicant’s flight records.  The  Host  Aviation  Resource  Management
(HARM) office at Tyndall  Air  Force  Base  will  publish  Operational
Support aeronautical  orders  for  the  duration  of  the  applicant’s
deployment and get the applicant paid  non-crewmember  Hazardous  Duty
Incentive Pay (HDIP) for months in which the applicant met the minimum
flying hour requirement of four hours per  month.   Additionally,  the
Offutt AFB HARM office will add the applicant  to  the  original  AFTO
Form 781, “Aircrew/Mission Flight  Data  Document,”  to  document  all
flying time for all missions  the  applicant  flew  during  this  time
period.

HQ USAF/XOOT provided copies of the letters to  the  HARM  offices  at
Tyndall AFB and Offutt AFB directing the stated actions.

The complete evaluation, with attachments, is at Exhibit C.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

In her response to the Air Force evaluation,  the  applicant  provides
four reasons why she disagrees with HQ USAF/XOOT’s  recommendation  to
deny award of the Aircrew Member badge to her:

        a.  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.
Her duties were associated with the aircraft’s primary mission.

        b.  AFI 65-503 defines aircraft mission position  designations
and aircrew.  For Rivet Joint, Airborne Cryptologic Linguist is on the
list.  She performed this duty on the aircraft at a  time  when  there
was no one else.

        c.  AFI 11-402, paragraph 6.3.1, states that “enter  non-rated
officers into aviation service when rated officers are  not  available
or  qualified  to  accomplish  specific  in-flight  duties.   Initiate
aviation service when assigning these officers to positions where  the
primary duty requires them to perform full-time flight duties.”

        d.  Criteria for permanent award of the badge  is  covered  in
AFI 11-402, paragraphs 9.4 and 9.4.2.3, and states “participated in at
least 10 combat missions as a primary aircrew member in  a  designated
combat zone.”  She participated  in  18  combat  missions  during  the
deployment.

The applicant further questions why she  needed  a  Class  III  Flying
Physical if she was performing operational duties.  Although  she  was
not assigned to  a  primary  aircrew  position,  she  still  performed
primary aircrew duties.

In further support of her  appeal,  applicant  provides  a  letter  of
support from her group commander and excerpts from regulations she has
cited.

The applicant’s complete response, with attachments, is at Exhibit E.

_________________________________________________________________

ADDITIONAL AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

Pursuant to the Board’s request, HQ USAF/XOOT provided  an  additional
evaluation of the applicant’s case.  After reviewing  the  applicant’s
rebuttal, they state that although  the  applicant  provided  a  great
service to the Air Force and United  States,  she  did  not  meet  the
minimum requirements for permanent award of the  badge  prescribed  by
AFI 11-402, Aviation and Parachutist Service, Aeronautical Ratings and
Badges.  They explain the conditions for which the  Air  Force  awards
aviation badges and why  the  applicant  fails  to  qualify.   AF/XOOT
addresses each of the four areas presented by the applicant for  award
of the badge and why they recommend that her request for award of  the
badge be denied.

The complete evaluation is at Exhibit F.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF ADDITIONAL AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

The applicant responded to the  additional  Air  Force  evaluation  by
addressing the following points:

        a.  AF/XOOT states that she is a career personnelist, which is
considered her primary duty.  The applicant responds that this is true
while she is at her home station, but  not  true  during  deployments.
During deployments, she performed duties as  an  Airborne  Cryptologic
Linguist.  Therefore, she disagrees with AF/XOOT’s assertion that  she
performed duties as an Operational Support Flyer.  Cryto-linguists are
required for the aircraft (RC-135) to perform its primary function.

        b.  In response  to  AF/XOOT’s  assertion  that  she  has  not
completed any aircrew training, she states  that  she  does  have  the
experience as a result of completing 36 combat missions and  has  been
assigned in the primary aircrew duty.  All training was waived for her
first deployment; however, prior to her  second  deployment,  she  was
afforded  the  opportunity  to  attend  aircrew  training,   including
survival, physiological, parachute, and egress training.

        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 she  has  more  flying  time  and
combat experience, she is not authorized the badge.

The applicant’s complete response is at Exhibit H.

_________________________________________________________________

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 regarding the applicant’s request
to be awarded the Officer Aircrew Member badge.   We  note  that  the
applicant’s requests for flight pay and documentation of  her  flying
hours in her personnel records have  been  granted  administratively.
We took notice of the applicant's complete submission in judging  the
merits of her request for award of the Office Aircrew  Member  badge;
however, we agree with the opinion  and  recommendation  of  the  Air
Force office of primary responsibility and adopt its rationale as the
basis for our conclusion that the applicant has not been  the  victim
of  an  error  or   injustice.    Notwithstanding   the   applicant’s
significant  contributions  as  an  airborne  linguist,  we  are  not
persuaded that under current Air Force  instructions,  she  qualifies
for award of the Officer Aircrew Member  badge.   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-2004-
00965 in Executive Session on 1 September 2004, under the  provisions
of AFI 36-2603:

      Mr. Thomas S. Markiewicz, Chair
      Mr. John E.B. Smith, Member
      Ms. Kathy L. Boockholdt, Member

The following documentary evidence was considered:

    Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 15 Mar 04, w/atchs.
    Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
    Exhibit C.  Memorandum, HQ USAF/XOOT, dated
                23 Apr 04, w/atchs.
    Exhibit D.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 7 May 04.
    Exhibit E.  Memorandum, Applicant, dated 27 May 04,
                w/atchs.
    Exhibit F.  Memorandum, HQ USAF/XOOT, dated 20 Jul 04.
    Exhibit G.  Letter, AFBCMR, dated 22 Jul 04.
    Exhibit H.  Memorandum, Applicant, dated 19 Aug 04




                                   THOMAS S. MARKIEWICZ
                                   Chair