RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
         AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF:	DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2013-03394
	XXXXXXX	COUNSEL:  NONE
		HEARING DESIRED:  YES

________________________________________________________________

THE APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

His travel orders; T-12469, T-3590, T-11720 be changed to 
aeronautical orders. 

________________________________________________________________

THE APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

While assigned to the Aeromedical Research Function, Brooks AFB, 
TX from 28 Nov 90 to 26 Dec 93, he should have been on 
aeronautical orders.  He performed official duties while in-
flight to include testing of aeromedical equip and in-flight 
medical care capabilities in the aeromedical evacuation system.  
His desired end-goal is to be awarded Non-Rated Officer Aircrew 
wings.  He is not seeking (nor will he seek) back flight pay or 
any other flight related entitlements.

Personnel at Armstrong Laboratory did not have the capability of 
loading flight crew orders as evidenced by the Aeromedical 
Evacuation Flight Crew flying on the same orders as he flew.  He 
received a flight physical, chamber qualification training and 
flight egress/safety training.

He was responsible for performing test and evaluation of 
aeromedical evacuation equipment, medical systems, devices and 
associated in-flight medical care in the airborne environment.  
He flew missions on the C-130, C-141 and C-9 aircrafts.

In support of his appeal, the applicant provides copies of his 
travel orders, with vouchers; Invited Medical Personnel (IMP) 
message and various other supporting documents.  

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

________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

During the period under review, the applicant was assigned to 
the Armstrong Laboratory, Brooks AFB, TX, from 28 Nov 90 – 
26 Dec 93.  He was assigned duties as a Biomedical Research 
Engineer.

________________________________________________________________

THE AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

AF/A3O-AIF recommends denial.  Based on the fact that the 
applicant has not provided substantial evidence that corroborates 
he held an Air Force Specialty authorized for flying status In 
Accordance With (IAW) 60-1, Flight Management; nor did he meet at 
least one of the requirements listed in AFR 60-13, Aviation 
Service, Aeronautical Ratings, and Badges, for award of the 
officer aircrew member badge.  The United States Air Force aviation 
badges symbolize attainment of a high degree of professionalism in 
a flying specialty and are permanently awarded only to those 
aircrew members who, by virtue of extensive training, experience 
and assignment to primary aircrew duty are considered part of the 
career flying force.  Over the years, the prestige of the aviation 
badges has been carefully and closely guarded through consistent 
and strict adherence to the award criteria.

The applicant’s travel orders were authorized by Mobility [sic] 
Airlift Command (MAC) in an IMP status.  IMP status allowed 
medical personnel to fly for orientation and indoctrination to 
the MAC aeromedical evacuation system and observation of its 
inflight medical care capabilities.  IMP status on an aircraft 
was contingent upon the availability of a seat which is not 
required for a patient or crew member (i.e. noninterference 
basis).  IMP members were not authorized aeronautical orders, 
but would have been included on the flight authorization 
allowing them on the aircraft.  IMP personnel would have been 
required to accomplish a basic flight physical, physiological 
training (altitude chamber), and egress training before being 
authorized on a mission.  Furthermore, the documentation did not 
validate that he was assigned to a duty position with an AFSC 
prefix G indicating his primary full-time duty was to be on an 
aircraft to accomplish his primary mission.  Additionally, 
aeronautical orders were published by the Host Aviation Resource 
Management office.  If the applicant was in a position requiring 
frequent and regular flight, MAC would have ensured his orders 
would have been published prior to the performance of flight 
duty.  Aeronautical orders are not related to travel orders and 
would have been required in addition to the travel orders.

IAW AFR 60-1, paragraph 2-8b., Nonrated Aircrew Members – “These 
individuals’ primary full-time duty is to be on board the 
aircraft to accomplish the primary mission. Nonrated officer 
aircrew members must be assigned to duty positions with an Air 
Force Service Code (AFSC) prefix of G.” Paragraph 1-6 states 
“Air Force members on active duty may be ordered to make 
official flights when in the best interest of the Air Force.  
They are not entitled to incentive pay unless placed on 
aeronautical orders that require them to perform specific 
inflight duties on a frequent and regular basis, i.e., fly a 
minimum of four hours per month.  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, K, or M prefix duty 
AFSC.”

The complete A3O-AIF evaluation is at Exhibit B.

________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF THE AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

A copy of the Air Force evaluation was forwarded to the 
applicant on 29 Oct 13 for review and comment within 30 days.  
As of this date, no response has been received by this office 
(Exhibit C).

________________________________________________________________

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.  In view of the 
above and in the absence of evidence to the contrary, we find no 
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 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-2013-03394 in Executive Session on 6 May 2014, under 
the provisions of AFI 36-2603:

	, Panel Chair
	, Member
	, Member

Although Ms. Barger chaired the panel, in view of her 
unavailability, Mr. Kearney has signed as Acting Panel Chair. 
The following documentary evidence was considered:

    Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 6 Jun 13, w/atchs. 
    Exhibit B.  Letter, AF/A3O-AIF, dated 20 Sep 13.
    Exhibit C.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 29 Oct 13.




                                   Acting Panel Chair