Date: 201710
Local time of day: 1801-2400
Location: HCF.TRACON, HI
Aircraft: Large Transport; Low Wing; 3 Turbojet Eng
Operator: Military
Operating under: Part 129
Flight plan: IFR
Flight phase: Cruise
Airspace: Class E HCF
ATC / advisory: TRACON HCF
Reporter organization: Government
Reporter function: Enroute
Reporter qualification: Air Traffic Control Fully Certified
Human factors: Distraction; Troubleshooting; Situational Awareness; Confusion; Communication Breakdown
Second reporter function: Enroute
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Deviation - Altitude Excursion From Assigned Altitude; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Clearance; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Inflight Event / Encounter CFTT / CFIT
Detector: Person Air Traffic Control
When detected: In-flight
Result: Air Traffic Control Issued Advisory / Alert
Contributing factors: Airspace Structure; Human Factors; Procedure
Primary problem: Procedure

Narrative: Two incidents happened with Aircraft X. Both incidents were exactly the same. From what I was told; Aircraft X had a 'special' route approved by the Traffic Management Unit (TMU); that put Aircraft X into an area where the Minimum Vectoring Altitude (MVA) was 120; but the TMU approved 110 as the altitude Aircraft X could fly on his route. The aircraft went below the MVA; and it was unsafe.As soon as I took over the sector; I was informed that Aircraft X would be entering my airspace. The supervisor who informed me handed me a hand drawn piece of paper that showed his route and his altitude. My first question was would the 110 altitude be clear of the 120 MVA. [FLM] said 'it should' and he stayed with me the entire time Aircraft X was in my airspace. As the Aircraft X approached the 120 MVA; supervisor instructed me to climb Aircraft X to 120 because he would not clear the 120 MVA. Aircraft X refused the control instruction to climb. I asked if I should issue a 'Brasher' to Aircraft X; but [FLM] told me not to. I did warn Aircraft X about the minimum vectoring altitudes; but he still refused to climb. I also called R5 to tell them of Aircraft X's refusal to take an altitude to clear the MVA. My phraseology may not have been perfect at the time; because I was not sure what we could; nor what we could not tell an aircraft participating in '[Special Operation].' I did have supervisor next to me at the time; and I would ask before I said any transmission. R10 and R9 are TWO different sectors. They need to be treated at two different sectors. When busy; R9 needs to be opened. Based on the level of traffic; R9 needs to be opened. In the past; there was almost a 3 way collision with three heavy aircraft because the sector was not opened. The NTSB was here to investigate (from what I was told) and the recommendation was to have R9 open and split from R10 during the busy hours. From what I recall; I believe the time R9 was to be open was [during business hours]. We really need to implement this again. Maui Approach is too busy to always be combined.


Second narrative: I was working R5 and received a call from R10 that Aircraft X was going through a MIA of 12;000 and advised to climb but the pilot refused to. This was an [Special Operations] aircraft. When the aircraft checked on frequency; I immediately advised aircraft to climb to 12;000 due to minimum IFR altitude that he was already in. They replied unable due to flight plan. He was almost unreadable and had a foreign accent. I just rogered the aircraft and looked at the FLM that was standing behind me and he advised that it was okay. I don't know what takes place to coordinate this unusual mission. I think procedures must be implemented to coordinate this in advance in a timely manner to avoid this issue from happening. I was told that the TMUC was given an hour in the [early] morning for approval. If this was the case; probably more should be given. Also I heard that the TMC is not familiar with the airspace that the route went through so was familiar with the MIA's in the area reference the requested altitudes. In other words; it was approved.


Synopsis: HCF TRACON controllers reported that a Special Operation aircraft was allowed to fly at an altitude below the Minimum Vectoring Altitude.