Search Decisions

Decision Text

AF | BCMR | CY2000 | 0001491
Original file (0001491.doc) Auto-classification: Approved

                       RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
         AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF:      DOCKET NUMBER:  00-01491
            INDEX NUMBER:  115.02

      XXXXXXXXXXXXX    COUNSEL:  Anthony W. Walluk

      XXX-XX-XXXX      HEARING DESIRED:  Yes

___________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

He be reinstated to Specialized Undergraduate Pilot Training (SUPT)
in the Air Force and entered into the T-38 flying program.

___________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

Several errors occurred in his training and  elimination  from  the
Joint  Specialized  Undergraduate  Pilot  Training  (JSUPT),   T-44
program, with the Navy, which resulted in unfair treatment.

He was experienced in the  Air  Force  system  of  daily  and  test
flights (checkrides), but when he was selected  for  training  with
the Navy, he  was  not  advised  that  training  requirements  were
different and more tenuous.

He was eliminated for a single error that occurred on  the  ground.
He was set up for failure by his instructor who targeted his  known
area of difficulty.

The Progress Review Board (PRB) that  recommended  his  elimination
from training was not constituted  in  accordance  with  applicable
Navy regulations.

The complete submission is at Exhibit A.

___________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

The applicant’s Total Active Federal Military Service Date (TAFMSD)
is 1 Jun 94.  He is currently serving on active duty in  the  grade
of captain.  A  profile  of  the  applicant’s  performance  reports
reflects  ratings  of  ‘meets  standards.”    The   applicant   was
eliminated from SUPT in Aug 98 for failure to master the procedures
and skills required to safely fly the aircraft.

___________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

The Chief, Undergraduate Flying Operations, HQ 19AF/DOU,  evaluated
this application and recommends denial of the applicant’s request.

Whether or not the Navy advanced training is harder or easier  than
advanced Air Force  training  is  totally  irrelevant  because  the
applicant was no longer  in  an  Air  Force  training  track.   The
Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) between the Air  Force  and  Navy
states that the host service’s policies will be followed  and  that
the host service is responsible for curriculum  management.   Every
Air Force and Navy student enrolled in the JSUPT course  faced  the
same standards applied to the applicant.

Unlike the Air Force flying  training  elimination  processes,  the
Navy’s elimination process considers a student’s  performance  from
previous phases  of  training.   Therefore,  the  applicant’s  T-37
training records were considered during the PRB.  The applicant’s T-
37 records revealed well below average  performance,  including  11
test failures, five failed training flights, and three failed check
flights.  The applicant was recommended for elimination during T-37
training by the squadron  commander,  but  was  overturned  by  the
operations group and wing commanders.

We believe  the  applicant  was  done  no  error  or  injustice  by
assigning him to the Navy track.  We also believe the Navy  applied
its elimination policies consistently in this case.

The complete evaluation is at Exhibit C.

___________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

The applicant’s counsel responded to the evaluation and states that
it completely misses the critical issues in the  case.   he  states
that they did not allege that the Navy training is harder as stated
in the advisory, but contend that the  procedures  applied  by  the
Navy to Air Force  students  is  unfair.   These  unfair  practices
unnecessarily resulted in the applicant being eliminated before  he
had a reasonable chance to succeed or fail on his own performance.

Applicant’s counsel further states that  the  evaluation  does  not
address the issues put forth by  he  and  the  applicant.   Counsel
states that the most significant shortcoming of the  evaluation  is
its failure to address the issue of due process regarding  the  PRB
that eliminated the applicant.   He  specifically  points  out  the
problems he sees in the lack  of  an  appointment  letter  for  the
senior captain on the PRB.

The applicant’s counsel attached a memorandum  from  the  applicant
addressing the training issues brought out in the case.

Counsel’s complete response, with attachment, is at Exhibit E.

___________________________________________________________________
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 probable error or injustice warranting
applicant’s  reinstatement  to  SUPT.   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 their rationale as
the basis for our conclusion that the applicant has  not  been  the
victim of an error or injustice in  regards  to  his  disenrollment
from JSUPT.  The Board did not feel that the applicant was  treated
any differently than any other Air Force  member  enrolled  in  the
Navy’s Program.  Therefore, in  the  absence  of  evidence  to  the
contrary, we find no compelling basis  to  recommend  granting  the
relief sought in this application.

4.  Notwithstanding the above determination, we note that  normally
when a student  is  found  to  have  a  deficiency  sufficient  for
elimination from training, an AETC Form 126A, Record of Commander’s
Review  Action,  is  prepared.   When  the  recommendation  is   to
disenroll  the   individual   from   training,   there   are   also
recommendations as to whether the individual should  be  considered
for reinstatement in the course at a later date and whether or  not
they should be considered for undergraduate navigator  training  or
battle management training.  Since there is no AETC  Form  126A  in
the applicant’s record, we are  not  certain  of  the  Air  Force’s
intent in regards to the applicant’s eligibility to  be  reinstated
into  this  phase  of  flying  training.    After   reviewing   the
circumstances surrounding his disenrollment, we  believe  that  the
applicant  should  be  given  the  opportunity  to  apply  and   be
considered  for  reinstatement  in  SUPT.   If  he   applies,   his
application will be considered on  its  own  merit  and  our  above
recommendation  in   no   way   guarantees   his   acceptance   for
reinstatement.  If  he  is  accepted  for  reinstatement,  we  also
recommend that he be granted an age waiver if required.

5.  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 RECOMMENDS THAT:

The pertinent military records of the Department of the  Air  Force
relating to APPLICANT, be corrected to show that:

       a.  At  the  time  he  was   eliminated   from   Specialized
Undergraduate Pilot Training (SUPT), a determination was made  that
he should be reconsidered for reinstatement at a later date.

      b.  If he applies for reinstatement into SUPT and his request
is approved, he be granted an age waiver.

__________________________________________________________________

The following members of the Board considered this  application  in
Executive Session on 28 September 2000, under the provisions of AFI
36-2603:

      Mr. Wayne R. Gracie, Panel Chair
      Mr. Laurence M. Groner, Member
      Mr. Jay H. Jordan, Member

The following documentary evidence was considered:

    Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 12 May 00, w/atchs.
    Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
    Exhibit C.  Letter, HQ 19 AF/DOU, dated 26 Jun 00.
    Exhibit D.  Letter, SAF/MIBR, dated 7 Jul 00.
    Exhibit E.  Statement, Applicant’s Counsel, undated;
                Memorandum, Applicant, dated 26 Jul00.




                                   WAYNE R. GRACIE
                                   Panel Chair



AFBCMR 00-01491




MEMORANDUM FOR THE CHIEF OF STAFF

      Having received and considered the recommendation of the Air
Force Board for Correction of Military Records and under the
authority of Section 1552, Title 10, United States Code (70A Stat
116), it is directed that:

      The pertinent military records of the Department of the Air
Force relating to XXXXXXXXX, XXX-XX-XXXX, be corrected to show
that:

            a.  At the time he  was  disenrolled  from  Specialized
Undergraduate Pilot Training (SUPT), a determination was made  that
he should be reconsidered for reinstatement at a later date.

             b.  If he applies for reinstatement into SUPT and his
request is approved, he be granted an age waiver.





            JOE G. LINEBERGER
            Director
            Air Force Review Boards Agency



Similar Decisions

  • AF | BCMR | CY2000 | 9900863

    Original file (9900863.doc) Auto-classification: Denied

    Applicant’s complete response is at Exhibit E. THE BOARD CONCLUDES THAT: 1. After reviewing the evidence of record and the documentation submitted with this appeal, we note that other than his own assertions, the applicant has provided no evidence indicating he was treated differently from other Air Force members in the Joint Specialized Undergraduate Pilot Training Program. In fact, it appears that the applicant was given every opportunity to succeed in pilot training, having been entered...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2004 | BC-2003-03830

    Original file (BC-2003-03830.DOC) Auto-classification: Approved

    After reviewing his training records, as required by AETCI 36-2205, the 47 Operations Group Commander recommended to the 47 TFW/CC that the applicant be eliminated from SUPT due to Manifestations of Apprehension (MOA) on 2 November 2000. AETC/SGPS complete evaluation is at Exhibit C. AETC/DOF recommends the applicant not be reinstated into any flying training course. AETC/DOF complete evaluation is at Exhibit D. _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT'S...

  • AF | BCMR | CY1999 | 9900412

    Original file (9900412.doc) Auto-classification: Approved

    RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: 99-00412 INDEX CODE: 115 COUNSEL: ANTHONY W. WALLUK _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: His elimination from the Joint Specialized Undergraduate Pilot Training (JSUPT) be removed from his record and that he be allowed to reenter training in JSUPT at either Columbus AFB, Mississippi, or Laughlin AFB, Texas. ...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2002 | 0201900

    Original file (0201900.doc) Auto-classification: Denied

    The remaining relevant facts pertaining to this application are contained in the letter prepared by the appropriate office of the Air Force. A complete copy of the HQ AETC/DOF evaluation, with attachments, is at Exhibit B. _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: In his response, the applicant indicated that he would agree that JSUNT and JSUPT have significant differences.

  • AF | BCMR | CY2002 | BC-2002-00937

    Original file (BC-2002-00937.doc) Auto-classification: Approved

    This exam is required for all students being considered for elimination to ensure students are “medically qualified at the time of any non-medical disenrollment.” As a result, the applicant was to be reinstated into training following a Medical Hold status to resolve the medical issue. At the time of her elimination, there was a policy allowing up to 6 months in Medical Hold before students would be considered for elimination. Then following the 3-month Medical Hold, the Flight Surgeon...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2011 | BC-2011-02211

    Original file (BC-2011-02211.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2011-02211 COUNSEL: NO HEARING DESIRED: YES _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: His Air Education and Training Command (AETC) Form 126A, Record of Commander’s Review Action, be amended to include the remarks of the Eliminating Authority recommending him for consideration for reinstatement into Undergraduate Pilot Training (UPT) at...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2001 | 0100085

    Original file (0100085.doc) Auto-classification: Denied

    The applicant was found to meet the size standards for entry into SUPT. Based on the recommendation of medical personnel, the commander of the applicant’s flying training squadron authorized a temporary (not to exceed six months) medical deferral for Phase I of the Weight Management Program and the applicant was reentered into training, Class 98-15, on 13 Nov 97. The applicant was notified on the AETC form 126A, Record of Commander’s Review Action, that he was being considered for...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2003 | BC-2002-02568A

    Original file (BC-2002-02568A.doc) Auto-classification: Denied

    On 4 April, AETC/DOF approved an additional 3.0 hours flying time. _________________________________________________________________ THE BOARD CONCLUDES THAT: After again reviewing this application and the evidence provided in support of the appeal, the majority of the Board remains unpersuaded that the applicant’s recommendation on the AETC Form 126A, dated 3 May 2002, Section III, Block 3, be changed from “should not be considered for reinstatement in this course at a later date” to...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2003 | 0001491A

    Original file (0001491A.doc) Auto-classification: Denied

    We note that with the exception of the information regarding the change to the Navy’s training policy, all of the evidence provided by the applicant was available during our initial consideration of his request for reinstatement to pilot training. While it has been confirmed that the applicant would not have been eliminated from advance training in the Air Force for the error made in the Navy’s program and might possibly have not been eliminated from the Navy’s program under the Navy’s new...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2007 | bc-2006-03308

    Original file (bc-2006-03308.DOC) Auto-classification: Denied

    ________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: He was disadvantaged as a Naval officer entering an Air Force (AF) program because he had not completed the same pre-Joint Specialized Undergraduate Pilot Training (JSUPT) his AF classmates had attended. They further recommend that if the requested relief is granted, his AETC Form 126A, Record of Commander’s Review Action, be changed to read “student should be considered for reinstatement in...