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.


APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

In an application dated 2 Jul 12, the applicant states that in 
1952-1953, he went on a Temporary Duty (TDY) assignment with the 
6148th Tactical Control Squadron, Republic of Korea (ROK) for a 
total of 180 days.  He was assigned observer duties, logged 
54 missions in a T-6 Mosquito but never received any official 
declaration of the earned observer rating.

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 serving in the United States 
Army and was not a member of the Air Force.

The Board should consider his untimely application in the interest 
of justice because he has tried to get resolution through Army and 
Air Force channels to no avail.

In support of his request, the applicant provides a personal 
statement, copies of DD Form 214, Report of Separation from the 
Armed Forces of the United States, memorandums, personnel orders, 
special orders, and various other documents associated with his 
request.

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


STATEMENT OF FACTS:

According to DA Form 66, Officer Qualification Record, dated 
26 Feb 49, the applicant was appointed a second lieutenant in the 
Army.

According to Special Order Number 316, dated 11 Nov 52, the 
applicant went TDY with the 6148th Tactical Control Squadron, 
Republic of Korea (ROK) for 90 days.
According to Special Order Number 47, dated 16 Feb 53, the 
applicant’s TDY assignment was extended for an additional 90 days. 

According to General Order Number 44, dated 18 Jan 53, the 
applicant was awarded the Air Medal for meritorious achievement 
while participating in aerial flight during the period 16 Nov 
52 to 31 Dec 52.

In an application dated 3 Jul 12, the applicant requested an 
observer rating so that he would be eligible for the observer 
wings.

In a letter dated 20 Sep 12, HQ USAF/A3O-AIF advised the applicant 
that IAW AFR 50-7, dated 13 Mar 53, “aeronautical ratings may be 
awarded to officers in the Regular Air Force, Air Force Reserve, 
and the Air National Guard.”  HQ USAF/A3O-AIF also noted that the 
documentation provided indicated that he was in a TDY status with 
an Air Force unit but was serving in the Army.  Consequently, he 
is not authorized award of an observer rating.

After reviewing the applicant’s military personnel records, his DD 
Form 149, and the evaluation dated 20 Sep 12, SAF/MRBR returned 
his application and referred him to the Army Review Boards Agency 
for assistance.

In a letter dated 3 Aug 13, to his congressman, his attorney 
noted a memorandum that referred to AFR 50-7, Army Air Force 
Regulation 50-7, Training, Aeronautical Ratings and Requirements 
of Attainment Thereof, dated 13 Mar 53.  The letter also stated 
that the applicant’s service preceded such regulation and 
spanned the period 20 Nov 52 through 9 Mar 53 and noted a 
preceding regulation dated 5 Feb 43.
On 27 Sep 13, as a result of the congressional inquiry, SAF/MRBR 
reopened the application based on the applicant’s request to 
consider Army Air Force Regulation 50-7, dated 5 Feb 43 as the 
prevailing guidance in effect at the time of the alleged error or 
injustice.  The applicant was advised to resubmit his original, 
signed application and include any new evidence or documents with 
the submission.

Subsequently, the applicant submitted another DD Form 149, 
requesting he be awarded Air Force Observer Wings as an exception 
to policy.


AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

AF/A3O-AIF recommends denial.  IAW AFR 50-7, Aeronautical Ratings 
and Requirements for their Attainment, dated 13 Mar 53, 
“aeronautical ratings may be awarded to officers in the Regular 
Air Force, Air Force Reserve, and the Air National Guard.”  
According to the documentation provided, the applicant was on 
temporary duty status with an Air Force unit, but was serving in 
the USA.  Therefore, he is not authorized award of the observer 
rating.

The complete 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 25 Sep 12, for review and comment within 30 days (Exhibit D).  
As of this date, this office has not received a response. 


ADDITIONAL AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

AF/A3O-AIF recommends denial of the applicant’s request to be 
awarded observer wings.  The applicant referenced Army Air Force 
Regulation 50-7, Training, Aeronautical Ratings and Requirements 
for Their Attainment, dated 5 Feb 43, in the documentation 
provided.  This regulation was superseded by AFR 50-7, 
Aeronautical Ratings and Requirements for their Attainment, dated 
11 Dec 51 and 13 Mar 53.  Therefore, the preceding AFR 50-7, dated 
5 Feb 43, was not applicable towards the time spent while he was 
serving with an Air Force unit during the periods 11 Feb 52 and 
16 Feb 53.  

The applicant provides documentation that reflects he was on 
flying status; however, it was common for commanders to place non-
aircrew members on flying status.  These members did not hold an 
aeronautical rating and were not awarded a rating or badge upon 
completion of flight duty.  Therefore, he was considered to be a 
non-aircrew member because he did not hold an aeronautical rating 
nor was that time eligible for an award of a rating, IAW AFR 35-
19, Flying Status of Nonrated Officers and Warrant Officers, dated 
12 Apr 51, personnel in this status were referred to as “Nonrated 
Personnel.”  

The applicant did not graduate from any course of instruction to 
be awarded an aircraft observers (bombardment, navigator, radar 
all-weather or medical) rating.  Therefore, he is not authorized 
award of the observer rating.

The complete AF/A30-AIF evaluation is at Exhibit D.


APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF THE AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

The advisory opinion dated 28 Jan 14, second paragraph is 
incorrect in terms of its argument that an observer could not be 
an observer unless graduated from the “prescribed course of 
instruction.”  He flew in the T-6 for 54 combat missions; 
therefore, it’s not factually correct to state he was a “non-
aircrew member.”   His job was to find new targets, then call in 
fighter bombers for bombing missions followed by descending very 
low to assess the damage.  The position required observers who had 
knowledge of the situation on the ground, for example, infantry 
officers.  He was in the aircraft and a member of a two-man crew 
for 54 missions.  

The Mosquito News is a publication for Mosquito members.  Page 
4 states “all observers attending the Myrtle Beach Reunion will be 
awarded Observer Wings.  Those that cannot make the reunion can 
purchase the wings through our supply officer.”

In further support of his request, the applicant provides a 
personal statement, excerpts from the Korean War Mosquitos 
Directory, copies of memorandums, general orders, special orders, 
and various other documents in support of his request.

The applicant’s complete submission, 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 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.  After 
carefully reviewing the evidence of record and the applicant’s 
complete submission, we do not find that the circumstances of his 
case merit an exception to policy.  While the applicant's response 
to the Air Force Office of Primary Responsibility (OPR) is noted, 
he has not provided substantial evidence which in our opinion, 
successfully refutes the assessment of his case by the Air Force 
OPR.  Therefore, we agree with the opinion and recommendation of 
the Air Force OPR and adopt the rationale expressed as the basis 
for our decision that the applicant has failed to sustain his 
burden of proof of either an error or an injustice.  In the 
absence of evidence to the contrary we find no basis to grant 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 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-2013-05881 in Executive Session on 20 Nov 14, under the 
provisions of AFI 36-2603:

	Panel Chair
	Member
	Member

The following documentary evidence pertaining to AFBCMR Docket 
Number BC-2013-05881 was considered:

	Exhibit A.  DD Forms 149, dated 3 Jul 12 and 30 Dec 12, 
	            w/atchs.
	Exhibit B.  Applicant's Available Master Personnel Records.
	Exhibit C.  Letter, AF/A3O-AIF, dated 20 Sep 12.
Exhibit D.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 25 Sep 12, w/atchs.
Exhibit E.  Letter, AF/A3O-A1F, dated 28 Jan 14.
Exhibit F.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 14 Feb 14.
Exhibit G.  Letter, Applicant, dated 3 Mar 14, w/atchs.