RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


	IN THE CASE OF:	  


	BOARD DATE:	  6 November 2007
	DOCKET NUMBER:  AR20070007866 


	I certify that hereinafter is recorded the true and complete record of the proceedings of the Army Board for Correction of Military Records in the case of the above-named individual.


Ms. Catherine C. Mitrano

Director

Ms. Jeanne Marie Rowan

Analyst

The following members, a quorum, were present:


Mr. Kenneth Wright

Chairperson

Ms. LaVerne Douglas

Member

Mr. Michael Flynn

Member

	The Board considered the following evidence:

	Exhibit A - Application for correction of military records.

	Exhibit B - Military Personnel Records (including advisory opinion, if any).


THE APPLICANT'S REQUEST, STATEMENT, AND EVIDENCE:

1.  The applicant requests award of the Aviation Badge and correction to his DD Form 214 (Certificate or Release or Discharge from Active Duty) with a separation date of 24 August 1984 to add the badge.

2.  The applicant states he is qualified for award of the Aviation Badge per Department of the Army (DA) Message 231/2005 titled "Clarification for Award of the Aviation Badge, AR 600-8-22" based on his flight status from January 1983 to September 1983 as defined by Army Regulation (AR) 600-601 (Flying Status for Nonrated Army Aviation Personnel), chapter 2-3.  He also states he had in excess of the required 48 flight hours and that eligibility for this badge was made retroactive to 1 January 1947. 

3.  The applicant provides a copy of DA Message Number 231/2005 and his personal flight records contained in the Aviation Management Information System (AVMIS), from Fort Rucker, Alabama, dated 27 September 1983. 

CONSIDERATION OF EVIDENCE:

1.  Title 10, U.S. Code, section 1552(b), provides that applications for correction of military records must be filed within 3 years after discovery of the alleged error or injustice.  This provision of law also allows the Army Board for Correction of Military Records (ABCMR) to excuse an applicant’s failure to timely file within the 3-year statute of limitations if the ABCMR determines it would be in the interest of justice to do so.  While it appears the applicant did not file within the time frame provided in the statute of limitations, the ABCMR has elected to conduct a substantive review of this case and, only to the extent relief, if any, is granted, has determined it is in the interest of justice to excuse the applicant’s failure to timely file.  In all other respects, there are insufficient bases to waive the statute of limitations for timely filing.

2.  The applicant's military records show he entered active duty on 13 September 1978 and that he completed basic and advanced individual training and he was award military occupational specialty (MOS) 82C (Field Artillery Surveyor).  He served continuously until his separation on 24 August 1984, having served for 5 years, 11 months, and 12 days.  His characterization of service was under honorable conditions and the reason for his separation was unsatisfactory performance per AR 635-200 (Personnel Separations), chapter 13.

3.  The applicant's DA Form 2-1 (Personnel Qualification Record) shows his duty MOS as 09W0O (Warrant Officer Candidate [WOC]) from 28 September 1982 through 12 September 1983 at Fort Rucker, Alabama.  This form shows that no evaluation reports were rendered during this period.

4.  On 11 September 1983, the applicant's temporary flight status was terminated per Orders 180-124 published by the Army Aviation Center at Fort Rucker, Alabama, dated 15 September 1983.  The reason for termination was the applicant was eliminated from the Warrant Officer Flight Training program for failure to progress.

5.  On 12 September 1983, the applicant's MOS 09W0O WOC status was withdrawn and he was awarded MOS 82C per Orders 180-123 published by the Army Aviation Center at Fort Rucker, dated 15 September 1983. 

6.  The applicant provided an electronic hard copy of his personal AVMIS Individual Student Report dated 27 September 1983, which shows that he was a flight student and that he had 142.0 flight-training hours logged on the AVMIS system.  The AVMIS report shows that he flew as a student pilot 4.5 hours solo, 25.5 in a dual flight status, and that he had 30 trainee flight hours under the visual flight rules (VFR) which is flying by visual reference to the environment outside the cockpit.

7.  Army Regulation 600-8-22 (Military Awards) states, in pertinent part, that the awarding of badges is to provide for the public recognition by tangible evidence of a high degree of skill, proficiency and excellence in the performance of duties under hazardous conditions and circumstances of extraordinary hardship as well as special qualifications and successful completion of prescribed courses of training.  

8.  Army Regulation 672-5-1 (Military Awards) in effect at the time in question, provided for temporary and permanent award of the Aircraft Crew Member Badge.  The regulation authorized the commander of any unit with Army aircraft assigned to publish orders allowing qualified members of that command to wear the Aircraft Crew Member Badge.  To be eligible for temporary award of the Aircraft Crew Member Badge an individual had to be on flying status as a crew chief in the case of crew chiefs, electronic sensor system operators, and flight engineers or as a non-crewmember in the case of observers, medical aid men, gunners, aircraft maintenance supervisors, or technical inspectors.  The regulation also required individuals to be qualified based on a Class III physical examination, and to hold a principal duty assignment as a crew chief, flight engineer, aircraft maintenance supervisor, observer, gunner, or technical inspector.  These personnel are authorized to wear the badge temporarily until relieved from these duties or they may be authorized permanent wear of the Aircraft Crew Member Badge once they have fulfilled the regulatory requirements for permanent award of the badge.  For permanent award of the Aircraft Crew Member Badge, an individual must have performed in one of the duties specified above for not less than 12 months (not necessarily consecutive) or must have been school trained for a principal duty specified above.  

9.  MILPER MESSAGE NUMBER 00-138 (date/time group 101221Z April 2000) changed the name of the Aircraft Crew Member Badge to the Aviation Badge and changed the criteria for award of the Basic, Senior, and Master Aviation Badges. The Basic Aviation Badge may be permanently awarded based on several different criteria.  For permanent award of the Basic Aviation Badge, an individual must be on flying status in accordance with Army Regulation 600-106 or be granted a waiver by the U.S. Total Army Personnel Command (PERSCOM); be on flying status (qualified by a Class III flight physical); must have performed in-flight duties for not less than 12 months (not necessarily consecutive) or by logging not less than 48 flight hours (whichever comes first); or be school trained.

10.  Army Regulation 600-8-22 currently in effect, states in pertinent part, that the Basic Army Aviator Badge is awarded to United States Personnel who have satisfactorily completed prescribed training and proficiency tests as outlined by AR 600-105 and must have been designated as an aviator in orders issued by the Commander, U. S. Army Aviation Center and Fort Rucker. 

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS:

1.  The applicant contends that he is entitled to award of the Aviation Badge because he was on flying status in accordance with AR 600-106 and that he logged not less than 48 flight hours.  

2.  The records show the applicant was an Aviation Warrant Officer Candidate in flight school at the U. S. Army Aviation Center at Fort Rucker.  The applicant did not graduate from aviation flight school as he was eliminated from the training program for not progressing satisfactorily.  The applicant was on orders in a flight status under the provisions of AR 600-106 as a student trainee.  The applicant was in training to become a helicopter pilot.  If he had successfully completed the pilot training program he would have been awarded a qualified pilot MOS and subsequently awarded the Aviation Badge.


3.  While the applicant did have 142 training flight hours recorded by the AVMIS, records show he was not serving in any capacity as an aviation crewmember.  He was a Warrant Officer Candidate in an MOS producing flight school.  Therefore, the applicant is not entitled to award of the Aviation Badge as he was in an MOS pilot training program and not serving as a crewmember.   

BOARD VOTE:

________  ________  ________  GRANT FULL RELIEF 

________  ________  ________  GRANT PARTIAL RELIEF 

________  ________  ________  GRANT FORMAL HEARING

__KW ___  ___LD __  __MF ___  DENY APPLICATION

BOARD DETERMINATION/RECOMMENDATION:

The evidence presented does not demonstrate the existence of a probable error or injustice.  Therefore, the Board determined that the overall merits of this case are insufficient as a basis for correction of the records of the individual concerned.




_____Kenneth Wright_________
          CHAIRPERSON




INDEX

CASE ID
AR20070007866
SUFFIX

RECON
YYYYMMDD
DATE BOARDED
20071106
TYPE OF DISCHARGE
(HD, GD, UOTHC, UD, BCD, DD, UNCHAR)
DATE OF DISCHARGE
YYYYMMDD
DISCHARGE AUTHORITY
AR . . . . .  
DISCHARGE REASON

BOARD DECISION
DENY
REVIEW AUTHORITY

ISSUES         1.
107.0000
2.

3.

4.

5.

6.