RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF: 	DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2014-00092
					COUNSEL:  NONE
		HEARING DESIRED:  NO 


APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

His records be corrected to reflect award of the Air Force 
Aircrew Member Badge.


APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

He participated in frequent and regular aerial flights during an 
alternating period of almost two years.

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


STATEMENT OF FACTS:

On 11 Mar 58, the applicant enlisted in the Regular Air Force.

On 30 Sep 79, the applicant was relieved from active duty and 
transferred to the Retired Reserve, effective 1 Oct 79.  He was 
credited with 21 years, 6 months, and 20 days of total active 
service.

The applicant’s DD Form 214, Report of Separation from Active 
Duty, dated 30 Sep 79, lists his Primary Specialty Number and 
Title as 73490 (Social Actions Superintendent), Secondary 
Specialty Number and Title as T32570 (Automatic Flight Control 
Systems Technician), and his Duty Air Force Specialty Code 
(DAFSC) as 73470B (Social Actions Technician, Drug/Alcohol 
Abuse).


AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

AF/A3O-AIF recommends denial indicating there is no evidence of 
an error or an injustice.  The applicant was a non-crew member 
and did not hold a DAFSC to be considered first priority 
personnel which is the requirement to be awarded the Aircrew 
Member Badge.

The Aircrew Member Badge was governed by Air Force Manual (AFM) 
35-13, Flying Status, Aeronautical Ratings, Designations and 
Parachute Jump Status, dated 10 Sep 62, Chapter 5. IAW paragraph 
5-9a, "The commander of any Air Force activity may authorize, by 
orders, enlisted members of his command to wear the aircrew 
member badge, provided that the individual:" (1) "Has qualified 
for and holds a principal duty assignment in a First Priority 
(crew member) AFSC as authorized in paragraph 5-6a.  The badge 
is to be worn only as long as the individual remains in this 
status.”  Furthermore, paragraph 5-6a states, "First Priority 
personnel (crew members)…. This designation applies to flight 
airmen who hold a principal duty assignment in the AFSCs 
identified by the prefix "A" and listed in AFM 35-1, [sic]. 
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.

According to the documentation provided by the applicant, the 
DAFSCs he held (T32570, T32550, 734708, T32570C) are not 
considered First Priority personnel, which is a requirement to 
be awarded the wear of the Aircrew Member Badge.  None of his 
DAFSCs had an "A" prefix which identifies him as a First 
Priority crew member.  Although some of the documentation 
provided, such as his AF Form I 042, Medical Recommendation for 
Flying Duty, has his duty title listed as a Flight Engineer, he 
was never awarded the Flight Engineer AFSC.  Also, the 
documentation provided clearly states that he was a non-crew 
member.  The guidance that the applicant references in his 
request, AFM 35-13, Chapter 5, paragraph 5-12b and 6b, has 
nothing to do with the Aircrew Member Badge, instead it is 
referencing how long orders are effective.

The complete A3O-AIF evaluation is at Exhibit C.


APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

The applicant asserts that AF/A3O-AIF erred in their evaluation 
of his case.  The dates of the regulations and prefixes 
referenced regarding his flying status are erroneous.  He 
conducted his flying from 1 Sep 60 through 28 Nov 62 and his 
flying period was not covered under AFM 35-13, dated 10 Sep 62, 
as referenced by the OPR.  There were no prefixes given at that 
time for flight mechanics and Auto-Pilot/Compass System 
Repairmen were required flight members on the T-29B, C, and D 
aircraft at that time.  Additionally, the OPR cites an erroneous 
AFSC that he held during the requested period which was actually 
an Instructor rating and a new AFSC that he did not receive 
until 15 Mar 65.  He held AFSCs 42353 and 42353C during the 
requested period not AFSC T32550 as cited by the OPR.  Even the 
flying crew chiefs did not have prefix identifiers at that time 
on T-29 aircraft but his AFSC would often trade flights with the 
crew chiefs, as they accomplished mostly the same thing.  
Furthermore, the T-29 aircraft was a unique aircraft and he 
provides the Technical Order (T.O.) covering the flight 
mechanics and their duties.  There was no special identifier for 
the flight mechanics flying missions, so they were listed as "Z" 
status and non-flight members because they were not flying 
officers; however, in reality they were flight crew members. 

In further support of his request, he submits a copy of his AF 
Form 4, Chronological Listing of Service, which details most of 
his AFSC changes.  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 Member Badge (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.  After 
carefully reviewing the evidence of record, to include the 
technical orders, we do not believe relief is warranted.  While 
the applicant contends the Air Force Manual cited by the OPR 
does not cover the period he served, he has not provided 
sufficient evidence to show that the applicable guidance used at 
the time, AFM 35-13, dated 10 Sep 62, was in error.  Although 
the applicant's states AF/A3O-AIF erred in their evaluation of 
his case, other than his uncorroborated assertions he not 
provided substantial evidence which, in our opinion, 
successfully refutes the assessment of his case by the Air Force 
Offices of Primary Responsibility.   Therefore, we agree with 
the opinion and recommendation of the AF OPR and adopt the 
rationale expressed as the basis for our conclusion that the 
applicant has failed to sustain his burden of proof of either an 
error or an injustice.  Therefore in the absence of evidence to 
the contrary we find no basis to grant any of the relief sought 
in this application.


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-2014-00092 in Executive Session on 21 Oct 14 under the 
provisions of AFI 36-2603:

	
	                       , Panel Chair
	                        , Member
	                  , Member

The following documentary evidence pertaining to AFBCMR Docket 
Number BC-2014-00092 was considered:

	Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 7 Jan 14, w/atchs.
	Exhibit B.  Applicant's Available Master Personnel Records.
	Exhibit C.  Memorandum, AF/A3O-AIF, dated 5 Mar 14.
Exhibit D.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 24 Mar 14.
Exhibit E.  Letter, Applicant, dated 27 Mar 14, w/atch.