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
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
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...
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. ...
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
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
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 Commanders Review Action, be amended to include the remarks of the Eliminating Authority recommending him for consideration for reinstatement into Undergraduate Pilot Training (UPT) at...
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
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...
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
________________________________________________________________ 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...