RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS
IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: 01-03595
INDEX CODE: 115.02
COUNSEL: Anthony W. Walluk
HEARING DESIRED: Yes
_________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:
He be reinstated into Joint Specialized Undergraduate Pilot Training
(JSUPT) and be reentered into a pilot training program.
_________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:
He was treated unfairly both individually by disparate personal
treatment, and jointly as a member of a training flight that was
subjected to unusually unfair and demoralizing practices as compared
to the practices of the sister flight. He was denied training flights
to which he was entitled and which other students received. His
elimination violated his right to due process. As a result of these
actions and errors committed at Vance AFB, OK, he was denied a
reasonable opportunity to both obtain the skill level expected by the
staff there and to demonstrate his potential to successfully complete
pilot training. He was not given a fair opportunity to attain his
goal to become a pilot in the Air Force. The only way to remedy the
inappropriate elimination from training is to allow him to reenter UPT
at a base other than Vance AFB, OK.
In support of his appeal, the applicant includes his counsel’s brief
elaborating on the foregoing contentions and documents associated with
the events and issues raised in his application. The applicant’s
complete submission, with attachments, is at Exhibit A.
_________________________________________________________________
STATEMENT OF FACTS:
Information extracted from the Military Personnel Data System (MilPDS)
indicates the applicant’s Total Active Federal Military Service as 25
May 1993. He is currently serving on active duty in the grade of
captain, with a date of rank and an effective date of 20 July 1997.
The applicant is currently serving as a Resources Flight Commander at
Hanscom AFB, MA.
Pursuant to a Inspector General (IG) complaint filed by the applicant
containing 9 allegations of violations of training instructions and
unprofessional behavior which led to his being improperly eliminated
from JSUPT, an investigation was conducted by an investigating officer
appointed by the command IG during the period 29 August to 8 October
1999. In a report signed on 8 October 1999, the investigating officer
concluded that the applicant’s allegations were not substantiated.
The investigating officer’s conclusions were subsequently approved by
the command IG.
The remaining relevant facts pertaining to this appeal are contained
in the official documents provided in the applicant’s submission
(Exhibit A) and in the letter prepared by the appropriate office of
the Air Force (Exhibit C).
_________________________________________________________________
AIR FORCE EVALUATION:
HQ AETC/DOF recommends the application be denied. HQ AETC/DOF
counters the applicant’s and his counsel’s assertions. The applicant
had ample opportunity during counseling sessions with his Flight
Command and Squadron Commander to surface many of the issues brought
forth in his application. He also had the opportunity to discuss
these issues again in his “show cause letter” to the Wing Commander
during the Commander’s Review but from the records submitted, he did
not. The applicant’s record speaks for itself-he was given an equal
opportunity to complete pilot training, but the responsibility for
failure lies with the applicant. HQ AETC/DOF concludes that the
applicant should not be considered for reinstatment into UPT. HQ
AETC/DOF evaluation, with attachments, is at Exhibit C.
_________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:
Counsel asserts that the advisory as written goes to extraordinary
lengths to sway the minds of the BCMR members. The advisory misstates
many facts and takes them out of context. Irrelevant facts have been
provided from current regulations to support their past position
rather than furnish the BCMR with regulations that were in effect at
the time when the applicant was eliminated. The advisory is extremely
one-sided and minimizes the accomplishments of the applicant. The
applicant was not a total failure as is portrayed with emphasis on his
minimal failures in separate blocks of training. No mention is made
on the total number of successful flights or the percentage of the
course satisfactorily completed. They ignore the fact that the
applicant was very near the end of the course when he was disenrolled.
Counsel notes that the applicant did not provide a copy of the IG
report because the report he received was heavily redacted with
sentences, paragraphs and even entire pages censored from the report.
It was impossible for them to coherently respond to their findings
since they couldn’t formulate a complete picture due to the amount of
essential information withheld. Therefore, they believe the best way
to rebut the advisory is a paragraph-by-paragraph response by the
applicant. Finally, counsel states that should the BCMR approve
relief that it be in the form of the opportunity to “recompete” for a
position. The recommendation from the advisory office is disingenuous
and is a red herring. The applicant is no longer eligible to apply
for competition and if the BCMR does not return him to flying
training, he will have no other opportunity.
The applicant also submits a paragraph-by-paragraph response to the
AETC advisory. Applicant states that it is true that he could have
raised many of these issues during counseling sessions or directly to
the flight commander. He did not complain about the way things were
being run at that point because he was raised in the military as a
dependant. His leadership was limited to being the senior ranking
student. It was not his place to quibble. Throughout his AF career,
he learned that whining and complaining is not the military way. He
put up with the hazing and harassment; since he felt that it was part
of the indoctrination. He trusted his instructors when it came to
matters of training, expecting that they would be doing the maximum to
help him succeed. Unfortunately, this was not the case and they gave
up on him, and instead expended their efforts to eliminate him rather
than focus on their job of training. He raised all these issues in
the Commander’s Review; however there was no record kept of the
proceedings. His age eliminates him from consideration through the
active duty selection process. The chances of being selected from a
field of over 500 officers, a second time, as a senior captain are
nonexistent. He was wronged, due to the unjust elimination from Vance
AFB; he should not be further wronged by this inappropriate
recommendation in the advisory opinion. The job of the flight schools
is not to eliminate students, but to train them. Complete copies of
their responses are 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 error or injustice. After carefully reviewing all
the evidence, we are not persuaded that the applicant’s disenrollment
from Joint Specialized Undergraduate Pilot Training (JSUPT) was either
contrary to the provisions of the governing regulation or unjust. The
applicant’s counsel arguments were noted; however, they have not
persuaded us that the applicant’s opportunity to complete pilot
training was unjustly hampered by unfair and demoralizing practices
within his flight. Based on his flight training records, the
applicant’s flying training performance fluctuated, resulting in his
going to a Progress Check and an Elimination Check. His success as a
pilot depended greatly on his own level of ability. We are
constrained to note that for obvious reasons, in cases of this nature,
the needs of the service rather than those of the individual are
paramount. In our estimation, no evidence of injustice has been
provided which would warrant extraordinary relief in the form of
setting aside this policy or that he was not afforded due process.
Accordingly, we agree with the opinions and recommendation of the Air
Force office of primary responsibility and find no basis on which to
favorably consider 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 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 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 November 2002 under the provisions of AFI 36-
2603:
Mr. Edward H. Parker Panel Chair
Mr. Mike Novel, Member
Ms. Martha Maust, Member
The following documentary evidence relating to AFBCMR Docket Number 01-
03595 was considered:
Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 1 Nov 01, w/atchs.
Exhibit B. Applicant’s Master Personnel Records.
Exhibit C. Letter, AETC/DOF dated 28 Jan 02 w/atchs.
Exhibit D. Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 8 Feb 02.
Exhibit E. Letter, Counsel, dtd 1 May 02, w/applicant’s
Statement.
Exhibit F. Letter, SAF/IG, Report of Investigation, dated
11 Dec 01 (withdrawn).
EDWARD H. PARKER
Panel Chair
AF | BCMR | CY2003 | BC-2000-02966
_________________________________________________________________ STATEMENT OF FACTS: Information extracted from the Military Personnel Data System (MilPDS) indicates the applicant is currently an active member of the Air Force Reserve serving in the grade of first lieutenant, with a date of rank and an effective date of 26 February 2001. HQ AETC/DOF states that the applicant’s training record speaks for itself the applicant was given an equal opportunity to complete pilot training, but...
AF | BCMR | CY2003 | BC-2002-01818
He received one AF Form 475 dated 14 June 2001 to document his elimination from Specialized Undergraduate Pilot Training (SUPT) due to flying deficiencies. The environment presented at Vance AFB, was in direct violation of the Department of Defense, the Uniform Code of Military Justice, the United States Air Force, Air Education and Training Command, the 71st Flying Training Wing, and the 25th Flying Training Squadron regulations policies, and guidelines concerning sexual harassment,...
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...
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...
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 | CY2005 | BC-2004-01709
The HQ AFPC/DPAO evaluation, with attachment, is at Exhibit D. _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATIONS: The applicant reviewed the advisory opinions and indicated that the only record stating he was unable to solo within 40 hours due to FTDs and was eliminated from the IFT program if the AETC Form 126A and it is a recommendation. As to the allegation he did not believe he was eliminated from IFT, the applicant signed a...
AF | BCMR | CY2003 | BC-2003-01440
The course is a grueling three- day training in airsickness management for student pilots. _________________________________________________________________ AIR FORCE EVALUATION: HQ AETC/DOF recommends the application be denied. _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: Applicant states that his package proves his desire and willingness to complete any program that he may be selected for in the future.
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 | CY2005 | BC-2005-02063
After only three training sorties, rather than tell his flight commander the complete situation, he simply told him he could not go fly, resulting in referral to the commander's review process. _________________________________________________________________ AIR FORCE EVALUATION: HQ AETC/DOF recommended denial. In any case, the elimination letter provided by AFPC shows MOA as the elimination reason.
A complete copy of the Air Force evaluation is attached at Exhibit C. The Chief, Undergraduate Flying Operations, Headquarters 19th Air Force/DOU, also reviewed the applicant’s records and provides the following comments: A. Based on the informed evaluations of his instructors, 19th AF/DOU supports the 71st OG/CC decision to eliminate applicant from JSUPT. After a thorough review of the evidence of record and applicant’s submission, we are not persuaded that he should be returned to...