Search Decisions

Decision Text

AF | BCMR | CY2013 | BC 2013 03399
Original file (BC 2013 03399.txt) Auto-classification: Denied
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS


IN THE MATTER OF:	DOCKET NUMBER:  BC-2013-03399

		COUNSEL:  NONE

		HEARING DESIRED:  NO 


________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

The Master High Altitude Low Opening (HALO) Badge be added to his DD Form 214, Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty.

________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

During his active military service, he completed 218 jumps after attending the HALO training course.  This number of jumps exceeds the requirement for the Master HALO Badge established  7 July 97, after his retirement. 

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

________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

According to the applicant’s military personnel records, he served in the Regular Air Force during the matter under review.

On 5 Jun 61, the applicant was awarded the Parachutist Badge.

On 1 Aug 66, the applicant was awarded the Master Parachutist Badge.

On 30 Nov 75, the applicant was released from active duty and retired, effective 1 Dec 75 and was credited with 20 years and 3 days of total active service.

The remaining relevant facts pertaining to this application are described in the letter prepared by the Air Force office of primary responsibility (OPR), attached at Exhibit C. 

________________________________________________________________



AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

AF/A3O-AIF recommends denial indicating there is no evidence of an error or an injustice.  The applicant’s records do show he was awarded the Basic Parachutist Badge and the Senior Parachutist Badge.  However, during the time period of the applicant’s jump history, there was no Military Master HALO badge, nor was there a Military Free Fall (MFF) badge.  The current instruction states HALO parachutists are awarded the Basic Military Free Fall Parachutist badge.  Qualifications and/or badges listed in AFI 11-402, Aviation and Parachutist Service, Aeronautical Ratings and Aviation Badges, cannot be retroactively awarded.  The OPR is indicating that it’s not that the applicant would not be qualified under today’s standard as h states his number of HALO jumps exceeds the requirements for the HALO Master Badge; however, the badge the applicant is requesting did not exist during the time of his service.

A complete copy of the AF/A3O-AIF 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 12 May 14 for review and comment within 30 days.  In response, the applicant provides detailed copies of his personal parachute jump log, listing only those jumps that qualify as HALO, numbering approximately 380, as well as other associated certificates and information (Exhibit E).  

________________________________________________________________

THE BOARD CONCLUDES THAT:

1.  The applicant has exhausted all remedies provided by existing law or regulations.

2.  The application was not timely filed; however, it is in the interest of justice to excuse the failure to timely file.

3.  Insufficient relevant evidence has been presented to demonstrate the existence of an 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 (OPR) and adopt its rationale as the basis for our conclusion the applicant has not been the victim of an error of injustice.  Therefore, in the absence of evidence to the contrary, we find no basis to recommend granting the requested relief.

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 issues involved.  Therefore, the request for a hearing is not favorably considered.

________________________________________________________________

THE BOARD DETERMINES THAT:

The applicant be notified the evidence presented did not demonstrate the existence of material error or injustice; the application was denied without a personal appearance; and 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-2013-03399 in Executive Session on 20 May 14, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603:

	
The following documentary evidence was considered:

	Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 15 Jul 13, w/atchs.
	Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
	Exhibit C.  Letter, USAF/A3O-AIF, dated 10 Jun 14.
	Exhibit D.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 12 May 14.
Exhibit E.  Letter, Applicant, dated 10 Jun 14.
	




                                   

Similar Decisions

  • AF | BCMR | CY2013 | BC 2013 05893

    Original file (BC 2013 05893.txt) Auto-classification: Approved

    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 applicant’s request that his DD Form 214 be corrected to reflect the award of the Missile...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2014 | BC 2014 01808

    Original file (BC 2014 01808.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    Because the findings and recommendations of his FEB supported his return to aviation service, he believes the decision to permanently disqualify him from aviation service by the final approval authority, , was either improperly influenced by immunized information in the safety investigation or simply arbitrary, capricious, and unreasonable. After completing action under paragraph 3.7.1.6, convene an FEB if the member's potential for continued aviation service is still in question.” On 18...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2014 | BC 2014 01190

    Original file (BC 2014 01190.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    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 | CY2013 | BC 2013 04057

    Original file (BC 2013 04057.txt) Auto-classification: Approved

    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 applicant’s 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 02610

    Original file (BC 2013 02610.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    _______________________________________________________________ AIR FORCE EVALUATION: AFPC/DPSID recommends denial of the applicant’s requests for the VSM, RVGC w/P, PUC, VCM, KSM, NATO Medal, Cold War Medal, AFOR-L and AFOR-S. DPSID was unable to locate any documentation in the applicant’s records verifying he served in Vietnam or an area of eligibility for award of the VSM, RVGC w/P or VCM. In regards to the list of medals and unit awards, he was seeking help in finding out whether any...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2014 | BC 2014 00092

    Original file (BC 2014 00092.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    Airmen crew members will be placed on indefinite flying status as long as they satisfactorily perform their duties, remain physically qualified, are assigned to an authorized Unit Manning Document (UMD) aircrew position (identified by the prefix "A") which requires duties as a crew member and participate in frequent and regular aerial flights. Lastly, he requests the Board review the uniqueness of the flying requirements of his AFSC in the T-29 Aircraft, and grant him the Air Force Crew...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2014 | BC 2014 02210

    Original file (BC 2014 02210.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    The PRB will be convened to review the trainee’s records and recommend continuing training, retraining, modify training or an FEB. AIR FORCE EVALUATION: USAF/A3O-AIF recommends denial of the applicant’s requests and states that the FEB’s final approval authority determined the applicant should be permanently disqualified from aviation service. The complete A3TK evaluation is at Exhibit G. APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF ADDITIONAL AIR FORCE EVALUATION: The AMC/A3TK advisory states that there was a...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2013 | BC 2013 05881

    Original file (BC 2013 05881.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    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 | CY2013 | BC-2013-00332

    Original file (BC-2013-00332.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    The complete BCMR Medical Consultant’s evaluation is at Exhibit F. ________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT’S 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...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2013 | BC 2013 05783

    Original file (BC 2013 05783.txt) Auto-classification: Approved

    In support of his requests, the applicant provides a 21-page memorandum, copies of the FEB findings and recommendations, Administrative Discharge Board findings, AF Form 3070C, Record of NJP Proceedings (Officer); LOE, OPR, AF Form 8 and various other documents associated with his requests. However, if the incident demonstrates unacceptable performance or an intentional disregard of regulations or procedures, a recommendation to disqualify is appropriate.” Further, paragraph 4.6.4.,...