RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS
IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2006-00576
INDEX CODE:
COUNSEL: NONE
HEARING DESIRED: YES
_________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:
His record be corrected to reflect the award of the USAF Navigator
Badge for the purpose of obtaining a commissioned position with the
California Air National Guard (CAANG) as a navigator.
_________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:
Air Force Instruction (AFI) 11-402, Aviation Service, Aeronautical
Ratings, and Badges, specifies two criteria for the award of Navigator
Wings, (1) that he be a graduate of an Advanced Navigator Training
School, and (2) that he have at least 400 primary navigator hours. He
has met both these requirements as he graduated from the US Navy (USN)
Advanced Navigator Training School (VT-29 at Corpus Christi, TX), and
he has accumulated 1,267.2 flight hours that only document his time as
a part of a combat Air Crew in tactical operations.
In support of his appeal, the applicant has provided a personal
statement and copies of his Aviator’s Log Book, Advanced Air
Navigation School Certificate, and other pertinent documents that
reflect his aviation experience and accomplishments in the USN.
Applicant’s complete submission, with attachments, is at Exhibit A.
_________________________________________________________________
STATEMENT OF FACTS:
Applicant received his designation as a Naval Flight Officer (NFO –
USAF equivalent is Navigator) on 19 October 1973. For the next
several years, he amassed flight time totaling 1,267.2 hours. He
eventually left the USN and joined the US Army Reserve (USAR) where he
was progressively promoted to the grade of Lieutenant Colonel. He
left the USAR and, on 5 November 2004, he enlisted in the CAANG for
three years as a Staff Sergeant. He is currently serving in that
grade with the CAANG.
_________________________________________________________________
AIR FORCE EVALUATION:
AF/A3OT recommends denial. While A3OT recognizes his respectable
accomplishments as a Navy aviator, they note AFI 11-402 wherein it is
stated the USAF may award aeronautical ratings only to USAF
commissioned officers. As a non-commissioned officer, he does not
meet this basic requirement and is thus ineligible for award of the
Navigator rating. However, A3OT further notes that having been
awarded the USN NFO Badge, he is allowed to wear his Navy wings in
accordance with AFI 36-2903.
A3OT’s complete evaluation is at Exhibit C.
_________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:
While he agrees with all of the pertinent facts of the Air Force
advisory, he notes even the AF acknowledges he meets all of the
applicable training and operational requirements for award of this
aeronautical rating. It appears the sole reason for denying him the
award of Navigator Wings is the fact he is currently not commissioned
in the CAANG. He contends award of the USAF Navigator Badge would be
in the best interest of the Air Force as the 163rd Air Refueling Wing
(ARW) has recently been redesignated as the 163rd Air Reconnaissance
Wing (ARW) and carries the distinction of being the first ANG unit to
fly the Predator. He states current Air Force policy allows rated
navigators who are also private pilots to fly the Predator. Since he
has his Private Pilot’s License (PPL), were he to become a rated Air
Force Navigator he would be eligible to fly the Predator.
Were he to retire today, because he holds a commission as a lieutenant
colonel, he would retire as such. Therefore, once he received his Air
Force Navigator Wings, he would be entitled to fill a rated officer
position within his squadron as a lieutenant colonel for an additional
six years.
Applicant’s complete response is at 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 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 its rationale as the basis
for our conclusion that the applicant has not been the victim of an
error or injustice. He is not currently serving as a USAF
commissioned officer and is therefore not eligible for award of a
navigator rating. Therefore, in the absence of evidence to the
contrary, we find no compelling basis to recommend granting the relief
sought in this application.
4. The applicant's case is adequately documented and it has not been
shown that a personal appearance with or without counsel will
materially add to our understanding of the issue(s) involved.
Therefore, the request for a hearing is not favorably considered.
_________________________________________________________________
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 AFBCMR Docket Number BC-
2006-00576 in Executive Session on 26 April 2006, under the provisions
of AFI 36-2603:
Mr. Jay H. Jordan, Panel Chair
Mr. James A. Wolffe, Member
Mr. Michael V. Barbino, Member
The following documentary evidence was considered:
Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 10 Feb 06, w/atchs.
Exhibit B. Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
Exhibit C. Letter, HQ USAF/A3OT, dated 24 Mar 06.
Exhibit D. Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 31 Mar 06.
Exhibit E. Letter, Applicant, Undated.
JAY H. JORDAN
Panel Chair
AF | BCMR | CY2014 | BC 2014 00305
His records be corrected to reflect he was awarded the wings and rating as a fixed wing pilot. Apparently, and unknown to the applicant, the Air National Guard (ANG) decided not to follow the Air Force Predator entry requirements as outlined in AFI 11-402, Aviation and Parachutist Service Aeronautical Ratings and Aviation Badges, instead they decided he could not enter Predator training without first completing a fixed wing aviation training program; FWQ. Also significant is the unanimous...
AF | BCMR | CY2006 | BC-2006-02651
In this respect we note, officers must apply for the basic Air Force Aeronautical rating via an ARB, and must be assigned to an operational flying position within one year for award of an Air Force rating. No evidence has been presented to show the applicant applied to the ARB or was awarded an Air Force aeronautical rating. _________________________________________________________________ The following members of the Board considered AFBCMR Docket Number BC- 2006-02651 in Executive...
AF | BCMR | CY2004 | BC-2004-01805
_________________________________________________________________ AIR FORCE EVALUATION: AF/XOOT recommends the applicant, provided he now meets the minimum flying hour requirements for award of the pilot rating, first secure a helicopter pilot operational flying position and then submit an application to appear before an Aeronautical Review Board in accordance with AFI 11-402, paragraph 2.11. The complete evaluation is at Exhibit C. AETC/DOF recommends that the applicant not be reinstated...
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 | CY2006 | BC-2005-00085
After three years, he received orders for a three-year flying assignment to Little Rock AFB. _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: A complete copy of the Air Force evaluation was forwarded to the applicant on 10 Feb 06 for review and comment within 30 days (Exhibit C). _________________________________________________________________ THE BOARD DETERMINES THAT: The applicant be notified that the evidence presented did...
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: 99-00584 (Case 2) INDEX CODE: 100.07 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: YES APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: It appears the applicant is requesting that his elimination from the Fixed- Wing Qualification Training Course (F-V5A-Q) be removed from his records. On 18 Nov 92, the XXst Flying Training Wing (FTW) commander concurred with the FEB’s findings and recommendations that the applicant should be...
AF | BCMR | CY2006 | BC-2006-00342
_________________________________________________________________ AIR FORCE EVALUATION: HQ USAF/A3OT recommends denial of applicant’s request because the error was not his medical condition leading to disqualification but in the documentation and reporting of his disqualification for flying and parachute duty. He was medically qualified to fly until Dr. K--- grounded him with his AF Form 1042, dated 13 Dec 05. B J WHITE-OLSON Panel Chair AFBCMR BC-2006-00342 MEMORANDUM FOR THE CHIEF OF...
AF | BCMR | CY2007 | BC-2006-03453
In support of his appeal, he has furnished copies of numerous documents corresponding with the office of Senator Bill Frist, a Medical Board Report, dated 6 December 2004, numerous medical documents from St. Thomas Hospital, The Heart Group, and his military medical records, a synopsis of his Guard Career, a Timeline, a letter of indebtedness from the 118 AW/FMFPM, dated 26 October 2005, his DD Form 214, dated 28 February 2005, SO RX-626, dated, 2 March 2003, and SO RX-368, dated 4 January...
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 | CY2007 | BC-2006-03247
However, it was revoked one month prior to her separation because she was erroneously given credit for a simulator flight by the flight records office, leaving her with 95 months of OFDA credit. _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: Applicant reviewed the advisory opinion and furnished a response indicating that no single flight in the aircraft could have made up for the flight office error before her required...