RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS
IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: 02-01874
INDEX CODE: 115.02
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXX COUNSEL: YES
XXXXXXXXXX HEARING DESIRED: YES
_________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:
He be reinstated in pilot training.
_________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:
The Air Force failed to provide him training in Introductory Flight
Training (IFT) because he was an Air National Guardsman. His inability to
complete Specialized Undergraduate Pilot Training (SUPT) was directly
attributed to the fact that he did not attend IFT.
In support of his application, he provides a statement from his counsel in
his behalf and a training review letter signed by the applicant’s Flying
Training Squadron Commander. The applicant’s complete submission with
attachments is at Exhibit A.
_________________________________________________________________
STATEMENT OF FACTS:
On 2 August 1993, the applicant enlisted in the Air National Guard (ANG) at
the age of 22 in the grade of airman basic (E-1) for a period of six years.
He was progressively promoted to the rank of Senior Airman (E-4). The
applicant attended the Academy of Military Science (AMS) for officer
training in 1998. Having successfully completed training, he was honorably
discharged from enlisted status on 18 November 1998. On 19 November 1998,
the applicant was appointed a second lieutenant in the Air National Guard
and as a Reserve of the Air Force.
The applicant was accepted for Specialized Undergraduate Pilot Training
(SUPT) and entered training on 5 February 1999. Due to problems he
encountered in the contact phase of training, the applicant was eliminated
from SUPT on 3 June 1999. The applicant then entered Undergraduate
Navigator Training on 25 June 2000 and successfully completed the course on
13 April 2001. He was awarded the aeronautical rating of navigator
effective 13 April 2001.
_________________________________________________________________
AIR FORCE EVALUATION:
ANG/DPFP reviewed the applicant’s case file and recommends disapproval.
The current Air Force IFT program was started in October 1998; however, the
Air National Guard (ANG) spent an additional six months developing
procedures before sending ANG candidates in May 1999. DPFP claims that the
applicant had the necessary qualifications to attend SUPT and that his
elimination from SUPT was based on his inability to meet required standards
and his failure to progress in situational awareness and other flying-
related skills. DPFP claims that the additional training the applicant
would have received in IFT would not have made a significant enough
improvement in his abilities or contributed to his completion of SUPT.
Although the applicant was eliminated from SUPT, the Air Force and the ---
ANG supported him in his efforts to complete navigator training. The DPFP
evaluation is at Exhibit C.
_________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:
The applicant believes that the lack of attending IFT put him at a clear
disadvantage, and played a major role in his elimination from SUPT. He
claims that he had not flown for 2½ years prior to attending SUPT and that
IFT would have entitled him to 40 hours of flying time. The applicant’s
rebuttal is 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 probable error or injustice. After reviewing the evidence of
record, we are not persuaded that the applicant has been the victim of an
error or injustice. At the time of the applicant’s enrollment in SUPT, the
ANG had not implemented the IFT program for Air National Guardsmen;
however, the ANG determined the applicant possessed the necessary
qualifications to enter SUPT training anyway. Even though the applicant
was eliminated from SUPT, the ANG supported him to become a Navigator. The
applicant asserts that he was eliminated from SUPT because he was not given
the opportunity to attend IFT. We disagree. The evidence shows that IFT
is not considered training, as such, but is used as a screening tool. The
applicant has provided no persuasive evidence that would lead us to believe
that he did not possess the proper qualifications when the ANG enrolled him
in SUPT or that he was unfairly treated when compared to other similarly
situated ANG officers who entered SUPT prior to the time the IFT program
was implemented. Accordingly, 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.
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 5 February 2003, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603:
Mr. Roscoe Hinton Jr., Panel Chair
Mr. Thomas J. Topolski Jr., Member
Mr. Steven A. Shaw, Member
The following documentary evidence was considered in connection with AFBCMR
Docket No. 02-01874:
Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 6 Jun 02, with attachments.
Exhibit B. Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
Exhibit C. Letter, ANG/DPFP, dated 20 Nov 02.
Exhibit E. Applicant’s Rebuttal, undated.
ROSCOE HINTON JR.
Panel Chair
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 | 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-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 was found to meet the size standards for entry into SUPT. Based on the recommendation of medical personnel, the commander of the applicant’s flying training squadron authorized a temporary (not to exceed six months) medical deferral for Phase I of the Weight Management Program and the applicant was reentered into training, Class 98-15, on 13 Nov 97. The applicant was notified on the AETC form 126A, Record of Commander’s Review Action, that he was being considered for...
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 | 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...
On 5 Jun 00, the 33rd Flying Training Squadron commander recommended the applicant be disenrolled from SUPT, not be considered for reinstatement at a later date, and not be considered for undergraduate navigator training. The instructor did not indicate this was mandated by Air Force instruction, which at the time of the incident he had not completely read. _________________________________________________________________ THE BOARD DETERMINES THAT: The applicant be notified that the...
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...
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...
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.