ADDENDUM TO
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS
IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-1984-03852-2
INDEX CODE: 100.07
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX COUNSEL: NONE
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXX HEARING DESIRED: YES
_________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:
In his request for reconsideration, he requests his records be corrected to
show he was disenrolled from basic pilot training for some reason other
than “flight deficiency.”
_________________________________________________________________
STATEMENT OF FACTS:
From the limited Air Force records available, it appears that the applicant
was appointed a second lieutenant, Air Force Reserve on 31 May 1949 and
entered basic pilot training on 19 June 1949. The applicant was eliminated
from USAF pilot training in September 1949. Subsequent to that time, the
applicant continued to serve as a member of the reserve components of the
Air Force and Army in various capacities. His name was placed on the Army
Retired List in the grade of major on 25 August 1987. He was credited with
26 years, 8 months and 4 days of satisfactory Federal service and 42 years,
4 months and 7 days of service for pay.
The remaining relevant facts pertaining to this application, extracted from
the applicant’s available military records, are contained in the letter
prepared by the appropriate office of the Air Force at Exhibit G.
On 20 February 1985, a similar appeal was considered and denied by the
Board. For an accounting of the facts and circumstances surrounding the
applicant’s service, and, the Board’s consideration of the appeal, see the
Record of Proceedings at Exhibit E.
On 2 September 2002, the applicant submitted a request for reconsideration,
contending that it is his desire to have the reason for his noncompletion
of basic pilot training changed from “flight deficiency.”
In support of his appeal, the applicant submits a personal statement, a
supportive statement from a student contemporary, a Randolph AFB
historian’s statement concerning pilot instructor shortages and documents
relating to his appeal. The applicant’s complete submission, with
attachments A to D, is at Exhibit E.
_________________________________________________________________
AIR FORCE EVALUATION:
AETC/DOF recommends the applicant’s records remain unchanged. The process
in place today to review elimination cases remains essentially the same as
the one used fifty years ago. Those boards served as a corporate body to
provide checks and balances and to maintain training system integrity. In
this matter, no one individual instructor, or one failed ride constitutes
grounds for immediate elimination without review and approval by competent
authority. In DOF’s opinion, there is no compelling evidence to
substantiate the applicant’s assertions. The DOF evaluation, with
attachment, is at Exhibit G.
_________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:
The applicant believes that he has provided a preponderance of evidence to
substantiate instructor misconduct. He feels because of his proven
lengthy performance, statistically, “flight deficiency” could not have
occurred (although, flight instruction deficiency surely did). He is
pursuing this matter because of honor, duty, and trust. He has no reason
to lie or fabricate any of this matter. The applicant’s rebuttal with
attachments is at Exhibit I.
___________________________________________________________________
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. While we do not doubt the
sincerity of the applicant or his supporters, more than fifty years have
elapsed since the period under review. Because of the passage of time
during which memories can fade or become distorted and the non-availability
of training records, the applicant’s ability to substantiate his claims has
been severely diminished. We note the statements provided from the
applicant’s classmate and a Randolph AFB historian. However, in our view
these statements do not substantiate that the decision to disenroll the
applicant from flying training in 1949 was inappropriate, contrary to the
governing regulation and policies then in effect, or not in the best
interests of the Air Force or the individual. We note that subsequent to
the period under review, the applicant had a successful career, ultimately
performing as a rated officer. We do not find this fact alone invalidates
the actions taken by Air Force officials in 1949. While we are not
unappreciative of the applicant’s service to his Nation, we are unable to
conclude that actions under review were erroneous or improper, thereby
warranting favorable consideration of 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 2 April 2003, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603:
Mr. Edward C. Koenig III, Panel Chair
Ms. Brenda L. Romine, Member
Mr. Thomas J. Topolski, Member
The following documentary evidence was considered in connection with AFBCMR
Docket No. BC-1984-03852-2:
Exhibit E. ROP, AFBCMR Docket No. BC-1984-03852-1, w/atchs.
Exhibit F. DD Form 149, dated 2 Sep 02, w/atchs.
Exhibit G. Letter, AETC/DOF, dated 2 Jan 03.
Exhibit H. Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 10 Jan 03.
Exhibit I. Applicant’s Rebuttal, dated 23 Jan 03, w/atchs.
EDWARD C. KOENIG III
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 | CY2002 | BC-2001-03595
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. As a result of these actions and errors committed at Vance AFB, OK, he was denied a reasonable...
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.
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 | 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 | 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.
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...
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 | 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,...