RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
         AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS


IN THE MATTER OF:      DOCKET NUMBER:  99-01588

            COUNSEL:  NONE

            HEARING DESIRED:  NO

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

A Safety Investigation Board (SIB)  be  reopened  for  review;  he  be
returned to Unmanned Aerial Vehicle (UAV) flight  status;  or  in  the
alternative his active duty service commitment be rescinded.  He  also
requests a review of adverse medical decisions taken since the  mishap
and a waiver of the new standards that apply to him.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

The SIB report was excessively biased and filled with  unsubstantiated
medical opinion.   This  stems  from  safety  board  members  who  had
conflicts of interest, namely the medical members.  Their  involvement
led to an abusive and coercive  interview  on  19  Mar  99.   The  SIB
downplayed,  misinterpreted,  and/or   omitted   all   testimony   and
mitigating factors in lieu of exaggerated personal blame.   The  SIB’s
report is filled with blatant innuendo and statements with no  factual
support.  He asks that the Board please  review  the  adverse  medical
decisions taken since the  mishap  (i.e.,  flying  waiver;  UAV  pilot
medical standards).

Applicant’s complete submission is attached at Exhibit A.

_________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

The applicant was serving on extended active  duty  in  the  grade  of
captain during the time period in question.

The applicant was evaluated and treated during his military career for
psychiatric conditions and  in  1993,  he  was  grounded  from  flying
duties.  Between February 1994 and January 1996, he was diagnosed with
an  adjustment  disorder  with  depressed  mood,  partner   relational
problems, occupational problem, and personality disorder not otherwise
specified.  The applicant was initially disqualified from Flying Class
II (FCII) duties by Headquarters, Air Force Medical Operations  Agency
(AFMOA) in May 1994.  This disqualification was upheld in January 1995
and again in February 1996.

During the contested time period, a Safety Investigation  Board  (SIB)
was conducted to investigate a mishap on 24 February 1999 involving an
unmanned aerial vehicle (UAV) in Kuwait in which the applicant was the
mishap pilot.   The  SIB  is  privileged  information,  which  is  not
releasable; therefore, the  SIB  is  unavailable  for  review  by  the
AFBCMR.  A SIB investigation can  be  reopened  upon  request  of  the
MAJCOM commander who convened the investigation.

An Accident Investigation Board (AIB) was conducted on 12  April  1999
following the UAV mishap.  In accordance with Title 10, United  States
Code, Section 2254(d), any opinion of the accident investigators as to
the cause of, or the factors contributing to, the accident  set  forth
in the accident investigation may not be considered as evidence in any
criminal or civil proceeding arising from an  aircraft  accident,  nor
may such information be considered an admission of  liability  of  the
United States or by any person referred to  in  those  conclusions  or
statements.  In the opinion of the AIB, the mishap was the  result  of
the mishap pilot’s failure to comply with established Critical  Action
Procedures  (CAPS)  for  Airspeed  or   Pitot-Static   Failure   after
experiencing total airspeed loss due to pitot-static icing.  The  CAPS
omission is not altogether unexpected, as this  event  was  the  first
time the mishap pilot had ever experienced this  situation  either  in
training or in flight-this emergency scenario was  only  addressed  in
training via discussion.  Other significant  factors  contributing  to
the mishap were aircraft  inexperience,  inadequate  cockpit  resource
management, judgment, and mishap  pilot  distraction  and  channelized
attention.

Following the mishap, the applicant was decertified from UAV duties by
AFMOA pending an Aeromedical Consultation Services (ACS) evaluation to
determine his suitability for continued  UAV  duties.   The  applicant
apparently declined the evaluation and was medically disqualified from
FCII and UAV duties in September 1999.

According to the Personnel Data System,  the  applicant  was  released
from active duty on 31 July 2000 and  transferred  to  the  Air  Force
Reserve effective 1 August 2000.  He served 12 years and 2  months  on
active duty.

_________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

The  Staff  Judge  Advocate,  HQ  AFSC/JA,  evaluated  the  case   and
recommended denial.  JA explains that AFI 36-2603,  para.  3.1  states
that a BCMR request is personal to the applicant and  relates  to  his
own military records.   They  have  difficulty  seeing  how  a  Safety
Investigation Board (SIB) or SIB investigation  can  be  construed  as
personal to the applicant or related  to  his  own  military  records.
Also, the applicant was not authorized  to  possess  a  copy  of  this
message nor had the authority to release the information to the  BCMR.
The main purpose for the safety privilege is the national security  of
the United States.  A redacted copy of the privileged information  was
returned to the BCMR.  However, the SIB and its report cannot be  used
against an individual in an adverse administrative action or  judicial
action (AFI 91-204, para 1.13.1.4).  This fact is  important  in  this
case because the underlying and erroneous premise of  the  applicant’s
BCMR application is that a SIB and SIB report were used  against  him.
They have seen no evidence to support his  premise.   The  applicant’s
request to return to flying status  will  require  the  input  of  his
command and flight surgeon, and does not appear to be a  question  for
resolution by either SIB or the BCMR.  Neither the applicant’s request
for review of “adverse medical decisions” nor his  concerns  about  an
active duty  service  commitment  appear  to  be  proper  matters  for
resolution by the BCMR.  Nevertheless, they  obviously  defer  to  the
Board’s judgment in that regard.

A complete copy of the evaluation is at Exhibit C.

The  Chief,  Separation  Branch,  Directorate  of  Personnel   Program
Management, HQ AFPC/DPPRS, reviewed the  application  and  recommended
disapproval.  The applicant does not  deny  knowledge  of  the  2-year
ADSC, nor does he assert any form of miscounseling in  the  incurrence
of the ADSC. They do not find any merit in the applicant’s request  to
remove his ADSC.  While he can no longer perform  UAV  flying  duties,
there is no evidence  to  suggest  he  is  unfit  for  military  duty;
therefore, he can be utilized until his ADSCs expire.  The applicant’s
request for removal of his PCS ADSC is solely based  on  the  AFBCMR’s
ability to grant other actions, independently of the PCS ADSC.

A complete copy of the evaluation is at Exhibit D.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

The applicant reviewed the opinion and provided a response,  which  is
at Exhibit F.

_________________________________________________________________

ADDITIONAL AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

The Chief, Operational and Training Division, HQ  USAF/XOOT,  reviewed
the application and referred it to HQ ACC/XOF, the appropriate  agency
to handle medical disqualifications.  That office indicates that  they
(XOOT) provide advisories when aircrew members  believe  an  injustice
was done to them while  they  were  aircrew  members  on  aeronautical
orders, aviation incentive pay or hazardous duty pay.

A complete copy of the evaluation is at Exhibit G.

The Deputy Chief, Flight Operations Division, HQ ACC/DOT, reviewed the
request  and  stated  that  the  applicant  declined  an   Aeromedical
Consultation Service (ACS) evaluation and was  medically  disqualified
from Flying Class II (FC II, i.e., pilot) and UAV duties by  AFMOA  in
September 1999.  HQ AFMOA initially disqualified the applicant from FC
II duties in May 1994.  This disqualification was upheld with the same
medical diagnosis in January 1995 and again  in  February  1996.   The
applicant eventually received an  assignment  to  the  11  RS  to  fly
Unmanned Aerial Vehicles (UAV’s),  prior  to  there  being  a  medical
review process for disqualified aviators  going  to  UAV  assignments.
However, AFMOA was willing to reconsider the applicant’s request if he
had agreed to an ACS evaluation.

A complete copy of the evaluation is at Exhibit H.

The Chief, General Law Division, HQ USAF/JAG, reviewed the applicant’s
request and stated that there is simply nothing that can or should  be
corrected by the  AFBCMR.   The  applicant  has  not  established  the
existence of any error or injustice occasioned by the SIB report.

A complete copy of the evaluation is at Exhibit I.

The Chief, Operational Medicine, Air Force Medical Operations  Agency,
states  that  the  applicant’s  current  medical  diagnoses  are   not
compatible with Air Vehicle Operator  (AVO)  Unmanned  Aerial  Vehicle
(UAV) duties.  The member contends the UVA standards were  promulgated
as a response to the Safety Investigation Board into his  incident  on
24 Feb 99.   In  reality,  the  lack  of  medical  standards  for  UAV
controllers had been identified the previous year.  The policy  letter
from AFMOA/CC, dated 31 Mar 99, had been in coordination  for  half  a
year.  The policy migrated into AFI 48-123, Medical  Examinations  and
Standards, 1 Jan 00.

A complete copy of the evaluation is at Exhibit J.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT’S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE ADDITIONAL EVALUATION:

The applicant reviewed the opinions and provided a response, which  is
at Exhibit L.

_________________________________________________________________

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.  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
and adopt their rationale as the basis for  our  conclusion  that  the
applicant  has  not  been  the  victim  of  an  error  or   injustice.
Applicant’s contentions are duly noted; however, we do not find  these
assertions, in and by themselves, sufficiently persuasive to  override
the rationale provided by the Accident Investigation Board  (AIB)  and
the medical authority.  The applicant has not  demonstrated  that  his
denial of flying status and the AIB were incorrect or unwarranted  due
to the results of the military medical and the Accident  Investigation
Board reports.  The FAA’s approval of a medical waiver for flying duty
in June 1998 does not necessarily correlate with Air Force  standards,
which are designed to ensure safety in a military flying  environment.
The Board believes  the  applicant  should  have  sought  waivers  and
changes to  the  medical  and  Accident  Investigation  Board  reports
through their proper lines of authorities.  Absent clear-cut  evidence
of impropriety, we find no compelling basis to grant denied waivers of
conditions that have been  imposed  by  the  proper  military  medical
authority and the Accident Investigation Board.

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   issues   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 13 March 2001, under the provisions  of  AFI  36-
2603:

                 Mr. Thomas S. Markiewicz, Vice Chair
                 Mr. William H. Anderson, Member
                 Mr. Steven A. Shaw, Member

The following documentary evidence was considered:

      Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 10 Jun 99, w/atchs.
      Exhibit B. Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
      Exhibit C. Letter, AFSC/JA, dated 6 Aug 99.
      Exhibit D. Letter, AFPC/DPPRS, dated 18 Oct 99, w/atchs.
      Exhibit E. Letter, SAF/MIBR, dated 29 Oct 99.
      Exhibit F. Applicant’s Response, undated.
      Exhibit G. Letter, USAF/XOOT, dated 27 Jan 00.
      Exhibit H. Letter, HQ ACC/DOT, undated.
      Exhibit I. Letter, USAF/JAG, dated 1 Aug 00, w/atch.
      Exhibit J. Letter, AFMOA/SGOA, dated 17 Nov 00.
      Exhibit K. Letter, AFBCMR, dated 30 Nov 00.
      Exhibit L. Applicant's responses, dated 22 May and 22 Dec 00.
      Exhibit M. AIB Report, withheld.







      THOMAS S. MARKIEWICZ
      Vice Chair