RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS
IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2011-03555
COUNSEL: NONE
HEARING DESIRED: NO
________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:
She be permanently awarded aeronautical wings.
________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:
She was an aircrew member with the 315 Aeromedical Evacuation
Service (AES), in the Air Force Reserves, and was eligible to
wear aeronautical wings. Her unit did not update her records to
reflect authorization of aeronautical wings for follow-on to her
next destination. Until recently, she wore her wings not
knowing it was not entered in the military personnel system.
She has an aeronautical order awarding the basic aircrew badge
under her former name.
In support of her request, the applicant submits a copy of the
record of her name change.
The applicants complete submission, with attachments, is at
Exhibit A.
________________________________________________________________
STATEMENT OF FACTS:
The applicant is currently serving in the Kentucky Air National
Guard (ANG) in the grade of Technical Sergeant, E-6, with a Date
of Rank of 1 April 2003.
On 22 May 2000 the applicants petition to change her name was
granted.
By letter dated 15 December 2011, NGB/A1PS requested that the
applicant provide an AF Form 8, Certificate of Aircrew
Qualification, or other documentation in order to determine if
she is authorized to wear the aeronautical wings.
________________________________________________________________
AIR FORCE EVALUATION:
NGB/A3O recommends denial. A3O states they do not have
documentation that the applicant completed training, became
qualified (indicated on an AF Form 8) or was eligible to be
permanently awarded aeronautical wings.
The complete NGB/A3O evaluation is at Exhibit C.
NGB/A1PS concurs with the NGB/A3O advisory and recommends
disapproval of the applicants request due to lack of
documentation to validate her claim.
The complete NGB/A1PS evaluation is at Exhibit D.
________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:
In an undated later, the applicant states she is resubmitting
paperwork for another evaluation to be completed. She has been
working with ANG personnel to try to retrieve her aeronautical
orders. Upon contacting the 315 AES, she discovered that her
records were not in their new electronic database and may have
been destroyed in either a flood or fire. She submits documents
extracted from her personnel records.
The applicants complete response, with attachments, is at
Exhibit F.
________________________________________________________________
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 offices 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. The
board notes that NGB/A1PS confirms that the applicant graduated
from Aeromedical Evacuation Technician Course; however, in order
to determine if she is authorized to wear the Airmen aircrew
member basic badge further documentation (AF Form 8) is
required. Based on the applicants rebuttal, it appears she is
taking the steps necessary to have her request properly
evaluated by the appropriate office. Therefore, , we find no
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 this application
BC-2011-03555 in Executive Session on 28 June 2012, under the
provisions of AFI 36-2603:
, Panel Chair
, Member
, Member
The following documentary evidence was considered:
Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 31 August 2011, w/atchs.
Exhibit B. Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
Exhibit C. Letter, NGB/A3O, dated 12 March 2012.
Exhibit D. Letter, NGB/A1PS, dated 16 March 2012.
Exhibit E. Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 11 May 2012.
Exhibit F. Letter, Applicant, not dated, w/atchs.
Panel Chair
AF | BCMR | CY2013 | BC-2013-03394
Aeronautical orders are not related to travel orders and would have been required in addition to the travel orders. Members who are properly qualified and directed to perform specific inflight duties, not on a frequent and regular basis, may be ordered to do so using a flight authorization. AFR 60-13, paragraph 7-5 states Nonrated officers are authorized to wear the officer aircrew member badge while assigned to and performing aircrew duties in a designated MSL position identified by a G,...
AF | BCMR | CY2012 | BC-2012-02121
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2012-02121 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: YES _______________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: He be reinstated as an F-16 pilot in the Oklahoma Air National Guard, effective 9 Jan 12. (3) In the judgment of the flight examiner, a Q2 may be given if there is justification based on Q- performance in one or several areas/subareas), requiring him...
AF | BCMR | CY2013 | BC 2013 04057
The remaining relevant facts pertaining to this application are described in the letters prepared by the Air Force offices of primary responsibilities (OPRs) which are included at Exhibits C, D, E and F. AIR FORCE EVALUATION: USAF/A3O-AIF recommends denial of the applicants request for the award of the Aeronautical Badge because she did not have at least 36 months of operational flying to be permanently awarded the Aircrew Member Badge. In accordance with Air Force Instruction 36-3203,...
AF | BCMR | CY2013 | BC 2013 05893
The remaining relevant facts pertaining to this application are contained in the memorandums prepared by the Air Force offices of primary responsibility (OPR), which are attached at Exhibits C through F. AIR FORCE EVALUATION: AF/A3O-AIF recommends granting the Aircrew Member Badge. Insufficient relevant evidence has been presented to demonstrate the existence of an error or injustice regarding the applicants request that his DD Form 214 be corrected to reflect the award of the Missile...
AF | BCMR | CY2013 | BC-2012-02476
The remaining relevant facts pertaining to this application are contained in the letter prepared by the appropriate office of the Air Force, which is attached at Exhibit B. Although the applicant states that he has accumulated over 1,200 USN flight hours, his logbook reflects a total of 1146.8 hours of accumulated pilot time. In view of the above, we find the applicant has provided substantial evidence to warrant partially correcting the record to add his USN pilot time to ARMS.
AF | BCMR | CY2012 | BC-2012-00612
Attained at least 150 hours of flying duty as an The remaining relevant facts pertaining to this application are contained in the letter prepared by the Air Force office of primary responsibility (OPR), which is attached at Exhibit C. ________________________________________________________________ AIR FORCE EVALUATION: USAF/A3O-AIF recommends denial of the applicant’s request for the Aircrew Member and Flight Engineer Badges indicating there is no evidence of an error or injustice. We note...
AF | BCMR | CY2013 | BC 2013 05881
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2013-05881 COUNSEL: HEARING DESIRED: YES APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: He be awarded the Air Force Observer Wings In Accordance With (IAW) AFR 50-7, Aeronautical Ratings and Requirements for their Attainment, dated 13 Mar 53. In an application dated 30 Dec 12, the applicant requested an exception to policy to AFR 50-7 due to the fact that he was in a TDY status to an Air Force unit while...
AF | BCMR | CY2014 | BC 2014 01190
On 12 May 14, AFPC/DPAPP informed the applicant that after a review of his records and the documents he provided, they were able to verify and confirm his boots on ground foreign service time at DaNang Air Base, Republic of Vietnam, from 12 Jan 67 to 13 May 67, for 4 months and 1 day. Such permanent award will be entered in the AF Form 7 of individuals so entitled. Based on the documentation provided by the applicant, he was designated as a crew member per AO-11, effective 23 Jun 65. We...
AF | BCMR | CY2008 | BC-2007-03983
________________________________________________________________ AIR FORCE EVALUATION: USAF/A3O-AT recommends denial of the applicant’s request due to the fact that he did not meet the requirements of Air Force Regulation (AFR) 60-13 for permanent award of the Badge. 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...
AF | BCMR | CY2013 | BC-2013-00332
The complete BCMR Medical Consultants evaluation is at Exhibit F. ________________________________________________________________ APPLICANTS REVIEW OF ADDITIONAL AIR FORCE EVALUATION: In a letter dated 7 January 2014, the applicant states that the BCMR Medical Consultant references his aeronautical achievements as one cause for his disapproval but he asks the Board to consider the environment that he flew in. The BCMR Medical Consultant references his Jan 2001 Aeromedical summary stating...