RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS
IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: 02-02104
INDEX CODE: 115.00
COUNSEL: NONE
HEARING DESIRED: NO
_________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT REQUESTS:
Reinstitution of a previously issued UFT slot, or exception to policy
to allow her to re-compete for a pilot training slot.
_________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:
The Enhanced Flight Screening Program (EFSP) is no longer a
requirement for training.
In support of her request, the applicant submits a personal statement
and additional documents associated with the issues cited in her
contentions. The applicant’s complete submission, with attachments,
is at Exhibit A.
_________________________________________________________________
STATEMENT OF FACTS:
Information extracted from the Personnel Data System reveals the
applicant’s Total Active Federal Military Service Date (TAFMSD) as 31
Dec 96. She is currently serving on active duty in the grade of
captain, with an effective date and date of rank of 22 Dec 00.
The remaining relevant facts pertaining to this application, extracted
from the applicant’s military records, are contained in the letters
prepared by the appropriate offices of the Air Force at Exhibits C and
D.
_________________________________________________________________
AIR FORCE EVALUATION:
HQ AETC/DOF stated that the applicant was eliminated from the Enhanced
Flight Screening Program (EFSP) in Apr 97. The applicant’s detailed
flying training records from 97 are no longer available as they were
destroyed after one year. In accordance with AFI 36-2205, individuals
who were eliminated from either EFSP, Pilot Indoctrination Program
(PIP), Flight Instruction Program (FIP) and the current Introductory
Flying Training (IFT) are ineligible to reapply for pilot training
unless specifically recommended for further training by the
eliminating (or approving) authority. DOF indicated that the
applicant was not recommended for further training and is therefore
not eligible to reapply or compete for another pilot training slot.
EFSP was replaced by the IFT program. IFT is conducted at civil
airfields by civilian flight instructors and consists of ground school
and 50 flying hours. IFT has replaced EFSP as a prerequisite for
entry into undergraduate pilot training. DOF stated that to reinstate
the applicant would not be fair to those students who were able to
master required skills during their initial exposure. The applicant
has had ample opportunity to pursue civilian flight ratings, but for
unknown reasons, has not done so. Based on DOF’s examination, there
is no evidence of error or injustice and they recommend the applicant
not be offered, or allowed to compete for a pilot training slot.
However, if the decision is to grant reinstatement of a slot, the
applicant should be required to complete IFT as a prerequisite for
pilot training eligibility. The HQ AETC/DOF evaluation, with
attachment, is at Exhibit C.
HQ AFPC/DPAO recommends the application be denied. DPAO stated there
is no evidence to support the first counseling error the applicant
mentioned. Nonrated officers are required to payback any incurred
active duty service commitment (ADSC) before beginning UFT. The
applicant completed her Intel training in Jul 98. If she had not been
eliminated from EFSP, she would have been eligible to apply for UFT on
the Apr 2000 board. DPAO indicated that the second counseling error
mentioned is a mystery. Elimination from EFSP was, and still is,
grounds for prohibiting officers from reapplying to UFT. Once an
individual has been eliminated from a flying training course, he or
she is ineligible to apply for UFT. The HQ AFPC/DPAO evaluation is at
Exhibit D.
_________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:
Copies of the Air Force evaluations were forwarded to applicant on 13
September 2002 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 error or injustice. We took notice of the
applicant's complete submission in judging the merits of the case.
However, we agree with the opinions and recommendations of the
respective Air Force offices and adopt the rationale expressed as the
basis for our decision that the applicant has failed to sustain her
burden that she 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.
_________________________________________________________________
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 31 October 2002, under the provisions of AFI 36-
2603:
Ms. Charlene M. Bradley, Panel Chair
Mr. John E. B. Smith, Member
Mr. Frederick R. Beaman III, Member
The following documentary evidence was considered:
Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 5 Jun 02, w/atchs.
Exhibit B. Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
Exhibit C. Letter, HQ AETC/DOF, dated 9 Aug 02, w/atch.
Exhibit D. Letter, HQ AFPC/DPAO, dated 6 Sep 02.
Exhibit E. Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 13 Sep 02.
CHARLENE M. BRADLEY
Panel Chair
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 | CY2002 | BC-2002-02568
In support of his appeal, the applicant provided a personal statement, AETC Form 126A, dated 3 May 2002, a letter from HQ AFROTC/DO, dated 1 May 2001, a Company Grade Officer Performance Report (CGOPR) for the period 15 June 2002 through 15 June 2002, AETC Form 6 (Waiver Requests), dated 21 February 2002 & 4 April 2002, and other documentation. On 15 March 2002, the applicant completed the additional training, but failed his second attempt on the Private Pilot check ride on. Since IFT...
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 | CY2002 | BC-2001-02617
On the applicant’s Commander’s Review Record it clearly states the student should be disenrolled from training and should not be considered for reinstatement at a later date. When he applied for Undergraduate Flying Training (UFT) in 1995, he stated on the AF 215 and he informed his chain of command that he had been eliminated from the T-41 in 1994. The majority also does not understand the applicant’s failure to wear his glasses while in training which was clearly not the fault of the Air Force.
AF | BCMR | CY2004 | BC-2003-03275
SGPS supports the applicant’s request to have his records corrected to show elimination based on a medical diagnoses rather than SIE. However, if the Board’s decision is to grant the applicant’s request, his record may be changed to show elimination from JSUNT as a medical disqualification. We note that HQ AETC/SGPS (Exhibit B) supports the applicant’s request for correction of his record and the opportunity for him to apply for Undergraduate Pilot Training (UPT) consideration.
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.
AF | BCMR | CY2005 | BC-2004-03434
Applicant’s complete submission, with attachments, is at Exhibit A. AETC/DOF complete evaluation is at Exhibit C. AFPC/DPAO recommended no change to the applicant’s record and stated since the applicant was selected by his commission source for JSUNT and was subsequently eliminated for academic deficiency, that it would be in the best interest of the Air Force to deny the applicant’s request to apply to the active duty selection board for pilot or JSUNT training. Applicant’s complete...
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...
The applicant’s complete submission, with attachments, is at Exhibit A. The remaining relevant facts pertaining to this application, extracted from the applicant’s military records, are contained in the letters prepared by the appropriate offices of the Air Force at Exhibits C and D. ________________________________________________________________ AIR FORCE EVALUATION: Inasmuch as the applicant’s training was conducted under United Sates Navy (USN) policy and guidance, HQ AETC/DOF requested...
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.