RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS
IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: 99-00584 (Case 2)
INDEX CODE: 100.07
COUNSEL: NONE
HEARING DESIRED: YES
APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:
It appears the applicant is requesting that his elimination from the Fixed-
Wing Qualification Training Course (F-V5A-Q) be removed from his records.
APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:
At the time of his assignment to this course, he did not have the necessary
prerequisites in order to attend.
In support of his request, the applicant submits a narrative of fact, a
statement from his wife’s doctor, an extract of AFCAT (Air Force Catalog)
36-2223 and an e-mail from the 117 ARW/IN commander (Exhibit A).
STATEMENT OF FACTS:
The applicant’s Total Federal Commissioned Service Date (TFCSD) is 15 May
83. He had prior service with the Army National Guard of GA and as a
Reserve of the Army until his honorable discharge on 6 Sep 91 (total
service of 10 years, 6 months and 18 days). On 7 Sep 91, he was appointed
a first lieutenant in the Georgia Air National Guard (GA ANG) and assigned
to the XXX TAS, Savannah, GA, in the position of co-pilot. By Aeronautical
Order XX, dated 23 Oct 91, the applicant was awarded the aeronautical
rating of Pilot (Helicopter only), effective 7 Sep 91.
A Flying Evaluation Board (FEB) convened at XXXXX AFB on 20 Oct 92 for the
purpose of developing and considering evidence concerning the applicant’s
professional qualifications as a trainee and to make recommendations
regarding his future continuation in the Fixed Wing Qualification Training
Program. The basis for the board action was the applicant’s failure to
meet course-training standards while enrolled in a USAF flying training
course. On 9 Nov 92, a legal review of the FEB’s proceedings found it
legally sufficient to support the board’s recommendations to disenroll the
applicant from training and to revoke his aeronautical rating. On 18 Nov
92, the XXst Flying Training Wing (FTW) commander concurred with the FEB’s
findings and recommendations that the applicant should be disenrolled from
training and the right to wear the Air Force Aviator Badge should be
revoked.
The applicant’s Education/Training Report, AF Form 475, rendered for the
period 7 Sep 91 through 8 Mar 93, reveals that he was eliminated from the
Fixed Wing Qualification Training for flying deficiencies.
The applicant was relieved from assignment with the XXXXth Student Flight
and honorably discharged in the grade of captain from the GA ANG and as a
Reserve of the Air Force, effective 25 Mar 93. At the time of his release,
he had completed 1 year, 6 months and 19 days of service, with his total
service for pay being 12 years, 1 month and 11 days. He was assigned to
the Nonobligated Nonparticipating Ready Personnel Section (NNRPS) until 1
Aug 98. On 1 Aug 98, he was reassigned from NNRPS to the Inactive Status
List Reserve Section (ISLRS). He was relieved from ISLRS and honorably
discharged from all appointments in the United States Air Force, effective
1 Mar 99.
AIR FORCE EVALUATION:
The Chief, Utilization, ANG/DPPU, recommended the applicant’s request be
denied. After reviewing the documentation provided by the applicant, DPPU
determined that the applicant’s elimination from training should remain as
part of his permanent record. DPPU indicated that based on the USAF
Training and Warrior Management Division’s (XOOT) review of the applicant’s
aviation history, he was awarded a USAF helicopter pilot rating before
entering the Fixed-Wing Qualification Course (FWQ) and was granted a waiver
of the prerequisites. Upon failing to meet training standards, a Flying
Evaluation Board (FEB) was convened to make recommendations about his
continuation in the FWQ. The FEB considered evidence of extenuating
circumstances concerning his wife’s medical condition and found these areas
were appropriately managed and found that it was not a significant impact
on training. The FEB recommendations were reviewed and approved by the ANG
Director of Personnel. The applicant was not qualified to enter the FWQ
course (Exhibit C).
APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:
A copy of the Air Force evaluation was forwarded to applicant on 24 Sep 99
for review and response. As of this date, no response has been received by
this office (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 probable error or injustice. We took notice of the
applicant's complete submission in judging the merits of the case.
However, we Force office and adopt the rationale expressed as the basis
agree with the opinion and recommendation of the appropriate Air for our
decision that the applicant has failed to sustain his burden that he has
suffered either an error or an injustice. In view of the above and absent
evidence to the contrary, we find no compelling basis to recommend granting
the relief sought in this application.
4. 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 issue(s) involved. Therefore, the request for a
hearing is not favorably considered.
THE BOARD DETERMINES THAT:
The applicant be notified that the evidence presented did not demonstrate
the existence of probable material error or injustice; that the application
was denied without a personal appearance; and that 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 this application in Executive
Session on 21 March 2000, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603:
Mr. Richard A. Peterson, Panel Chair
Ms. Peggy E. Gordon, Member
Mr. Philip Sheuerman, Member
The following documentary evidence was considered:
Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 25 Feb 99, w/atchs.
Exhibit B. Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
Exhibit C. Letter, ANG/DPPU, dated 31 Aug 99.
Exhibit D. Letter, SAF/MIBR, dated 24 Sep 99.
RICHARD A. PETERSON
Panel Chair
_________________________________________________________________ AIR FORCE EVALUATION: Pursuant to the Board’s request, the Personnel Operations Branch, ANG/DPFO, reviewed the additional information submitted and indicated that they are unable to administratively correct the applicant’s military records. The applicant has produced a number of supportive statements from high-level ANG and Air Force officers who support his request. Exhibit G. Letter, ANG/DPFO, dated 4 Aug 00.
AF | BCMR | CY2006 | BC-2005-02208
Based on a review of the facts, we agree she should have met an FEB after her elimination from FWQ training as an FEB would be the only correct action to evaluate retention in (or removal from) training, and qualification for continued aviation service. She failed two opportunities to complete fixed wing training and should have met an FEB. ____________________________________________________________ THE BOARD RECOMMENDS THAT: The pertinent military records of the Department of the Air...
AF | BCMR | CY2014 | BC 2014 00305
His records be corrected to reflect he was awarded the wings and rating as a fixed wing pilot. Apparently, and unknown to the applicant, the Air National Guard (ANG) decided not to follow the Air Force Predator entry requirements as outlined in AFI 11-402, Aviation and Parachutist Service Aeronautical Ratings and Aviation Badges, instead they decided he could not enter Predator training without first completing a fixed wing aviation training program; FWQ. Also significant is the unanimous...
AF | BCMR | CY2004 | BC-2004-01805
_________________________________________________________________ AIR FORCE EVALUATION: AF/XOOT recommends the applicant, provided he now meets the minimum flying hour requirements for award of the pilot rating, first secure a helicopter pilot operational flying position and then submit an application to appear before an Aeronautical Review Board in accordance with AFI 11-402, paragraph 2.11. The complete evaluation is at Exhibit C. AETC/DOF recommends that the applicant not be reinstated...
AF | BCMR | CY2009 | BC-2008-02883
Any and or all ANG and Army records damaged by the Revocation of Flying Order action be corrected. During this time, he received a negative OPR from his AFR unit. He was never informed his Flying Order would be permanently revoked, in fact, he was told by his former ANG commander that his record would not be damaged in any way should he be unable to return to Oklahoma for continuation of T-37 training with only one day’s notice.
AF | BCMR | CY2011 | BC-2011-03725
However, no eligible RPA pilot will be able to take advantage of this due to the way one year orders are allocated and the delay in the release of the FY11 guidance. In support of his request, the applicant provides copies of his Air National Guard (ANG) FY11 ACP Program Announcement and Implementation Policy, aeronautical order, FY11 ACP Agreement Statement of Understanding (SOU), and other documents in support of his application. ...
AF | BCMR | CY2011 | BC-2011-02191
_________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: On 1 Oct 10, he became eligible for ACP when he received his initial AGR tour orders. The applicant was initially ordered to extended active duty from 1 Oct 10 to 30 Sep 13. We took notice of the applicants complete submission in judging the merits of the case; however, we agree with the opinions and recommendations of the Air Force offices of primary responsibility and adopt their rationale as the...
AF | BCMR | CY2005 | BC-2004-02126
The applicant holds an aeronautical rating of navigator with an Aviation Service Date of 25 March 1996. It is COMACC’s opinion that the applicant’s requests have no basis and; therefore, he stands by the findings and recommendations of the FEB, the professional review and recommendations of the rated functional experts, the legal review for sufficiency of evidence, and the decision to permanently disqualify the applicant as a pilot in any type of Air Force aircraft. MICHAEL V....
The remaining relevant facts pertaining to this application are contained in the letters prepared by the appropriate offices of the Air Force and the Department of the Defense Office of the Inspector General (DOD IG) Report of Investigation (Exhibit C). _________________________________________________________________ AIR FORCE EVALUATION: The Executive Support Staff Officer, New York Air National Guard (NYANG), DMNA/ANG-ESSO, reviewed this application and recommended denial. The Report of...
AF | BCMR | CY2014 | BC 2014 00309
However, it is noted the contested report has been a matter of record for four years. The assignments for pilot training graduates are based on the needs of the Air Force, assignment availability and student desires. As for his request for removal of the contested Training Report, we note the contested report has been replaced with a Letter of Evaluation by direction of the Air Force Chief of Staff.