RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS
IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2002-02902
INDEX CODE: 100.07
APPLICANT COUNSEL: NONE
HEARING DESIRED: NO
_________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:
AETC Form 126A, Record of Commander’s Review Action, Section III.
Reviewing Authority Recommendations, be changed from “Not be
considered for reinstatement in this course at a later date” to “Be
considered in this course at a later date.”
_________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:
During the Commander’s Review discussion with his commander, he was
told that he would be considered for reinstatement at a later date.
In support of his appeal, applicant has provided a copy of the
contested AETC Form 126A and a statement from the acting Operations
Group (OG) commander who was the reviewing authority for his
Commander’s Review. Applicant’s complete submission is at Exhibit A.
_________________________________________________________________
STATEMENT OF FACTS:
Applicant is currently serving on active duty in the grade of first
lieutenant (1st Lt/0-2), with the duty title of ICBM Combat Crew
Deputy Commander.
AETC Form 126A, dated 12 Oct 01, reflects that the applicant was
eliminated from training for flying deficiencies. The reviewing
authority found that the applicant’s deficiency was sufficient for
elimination. He recommended that applicant be disenrolled from
training; not be considered for reinstatement in the course at a later
date; and he be considered for undergraduate navigator training. The
approving authority marked “Eliminate” and noted that the applicant
showed the qualities of a competent, professional officer and showed
good potential as a valuable officer in the United States Air Force.
He highly recommended that the applicant be retrained into the Space
Operations career field.
_________________________________________________________________
AIR FORCE EVALUATION:
HQ AETC/DOF recommends denial. They state in part, that the applicant
had entered Specialized Undergraduate Pilot Training (SUPT) in May
2001 and failed 13 (thirteen) simulator and aircraft training sorties.
Applicant was subsequently scheduled for an Elimination Check Ride
that he also failed. Failure of this evaluation placed the applicant
under the Commander’s Review process. As a result, he was eliminated
from SUPT in October 2001.
DOF states that the reviewing authority makes recommendations to the
Wing Commander on student disposition. Wing Commanders are the final
elimination Approval Authority for undergraduate flying training
eliminations. Subsequent uncertainty or misgivings do not carry any
weight without the Wing Commander’s endorsement.
In their initial review of the applicant’s request, DOF contacted the
applicant’s OG in September 2002 for clarification of this issue and
was told that the OG had changed his mind again and provided DOF an
email (attached), indicating that the applicant should not be
reconsidered for reinstatement to SUPT.
The complete evaluation, with attachments, is at Exhibit C.
_________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:
A copy of the Air Force evaluation was forwarded to the applicant on
20 December 2002 for review and comment within 30 days. As of this
date, there has been no response received by this office. (Exhibit D)
_________________________________________________________________
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. We took notice of the evidence
of record and the applicant's complete submission in judging the
merits of the case and felt that the applicant did not submit
sufficient evidence to overcome the presumption of regularity
concerning the initial recommendation of his Operations Group
Commander (Reviewing Authority) that he “not be considered for
reinstatement in the course at a later date.” Consequently, 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. Therefore, in the absence of 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 AFBCMR Docket Number BC-
2002-02902 in Executive Session on 4 March 2003, under the provisions
of AFI 36-2603:
Mr. Joseph A. Roj, Panel Chair
Ms. Kathleen F. Graham, Member
Mr. James W. Russell, III, Member
The following documentary evidence was considered:
Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dtd 3 Sep 02, w/atchs.
Exhibit B. Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
Exhibit C. Letter, HQ AETC/DOF, dtd 6 Dec 02, w/atchs.
Exhibit D. Letter, SAF/MRBR, dtd 20 Dec 02.
JOSEPH A. ROJ
Panel Chair
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 | 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...
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 | CY2004 | BC-2004-00434
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2004-00434 INDEX NUMBER: 115.00 XXXXXXX COUNSEL: None XXXXXXX HEARING DESIRED: No _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: His AETC Form 126A be changed to show that he be considered for reinstatement into Specialized Undergraduate Pilot Training (SUPT) at a later date and that he be considered for Undergraduate Navigator Training...
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 | CY2004 | BC-2004-00696
When he spoke with his Numbered Air Force Headquarters about reinstatement, he was directly asked about his ethnicity. From this review, the IG concluded that the applicant’s elimination from SUPT was for cause and in accordance with command guidance. Placement in and removal from CAP is the responsibility of the student’s flight commander and normally initiated when substandard performance requires close monitoring of an individual’s progress.
AF | BCMR | CY2003 | BC-2002-01823
DPFP’s evaluation, along with attached correspondence from the -- ANG Chief of Staff and an e-mail trail between DPFP and the ANG Advisor to the Commander for 19th Air Force, is at Exhibit B. HQ AETC/DOF recommends the applicant not be reinstated into SUPT. DOF’s complete evaluation, with attachments, is at Exhibit C. _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: Applicant notes that the National Guard Bureau (NGB) has...
AF | BCMR | CY2003 | BC-2003-00938
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2003-00938 INDEX CODE: 110.03 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: His Air Education & Training Command (AETC) Form 126A, Section III, Recommendation, be changed to read “The student should be considered for reinstatement in this course at a later...
_________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: The reasons the applicant believes the records to be in error or unjust and the evidence submitted in support of the appeal are at Exhibit A. Based on the evidence provided they recommend denying the applicant's request. The applicant states the stress management program offered by Behavioral Services was not advertised when he was in SUPT.
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...