ADDENDUM TO
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS
IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2002-02568
INDEX CODE: 115.00
COUNSEL: NONE
HEARING DESIRED: NO
_________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:
In the applicant’s request for reconsideration, he requests the
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 “should be considered for reinstatement in this
course at a later date” to allow him to be considered for future
Specialized Undergraduate Pilot Training (SUPT).
_________________________________________________________________
STATEMENT OF FACTS:
On 19 December 2002, the Board considered and denied the applicant’s
request that the 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 “should be considered for
reinstatement in this course at a later date” to allow him to be considered
for future Specialized Undergraduate Pilot Training (SUPT) - Exhibit F.
The applicant is currently serving on extended active duty in the grade of
first lieutenant.
On 11 July 2001, applicant began the Introductory Flight Training (IFT)
program at a civilian flight training facility. He did not make his first
attempt to pass the FAA flight evaluation until 3 February 2002.
On 3 February 2002, the applicant failed his first attempt on the flight
evaluation.
On 7 February 2002, a waiver for an additional 8.0 hours of training was
generated. On 14 February 2002, the waiver was reviewed by AFROTC/DO and
based on the large number of additional hours requested AETC/DOF
disapproved the waiver on 20 February 2002.
On 21 February 2002, a second waiver was submitted for 3.5 hours and
approved by AETC/DOF.
On 15 March 2002, the applicant completed the additional training, but
failed his second attempt on the Private Pilot check ride on. At this
point the applicant had completed 53.5 flying hours (enrolled in IFT for
approximately 240 days).
On 19 March 2002, another waiver was submitted requesting an additional 1.5
hours to complete training. 19AF/DO recommended disapproval on 22 March.
AETC/DOF also disapproved the request on 26 March 2002.
The ---th Flying Training Squadron Commander personally appealed to
AETC/DOF the following week. On 4 April, AETC/DOF approved an additional
3.0 hours flying time.
The civilian flight school would not approve the applicant to make a third
attempt within the allotted hours (total time 56.5 hours).
On 3 May 2002, his commander recommended he be eliminated from IFT using
AETC Form 126A, Record of Commander’s Review Action. Final authority for
approving this action (19AF/DO) concurred and signed the AETC Form 126A on
16 May 2002.
In April 2003 the applicant graduated from Specialized Undergraduate
Navigator Training (SUNT).
On 8 July 2003, the Board staff received the applicant’s request for
reconsideration. The applicant is contending the fact that the dominant
issue behind his failure at SUPT was his poor proficiency caused by unique
events that caused numerous and uncontrollable breaks in training. Unlike
many of his peers, IFT was not his full time job at the ---th FTS. After
the September 11th attacks he was assigned several duties and projects that
cut into his IFT training. Combined with inclement weather, these duties
account for the breaks in training, which extended his time in IFT to 208
days before his first check ride attempt (Exhibit G).
_________________________________________________________________
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 “should be considered for reinstatement
in this course at a later date” to allow him to be considered for future
Specialized Undergraduate Pilot Training (SUPT). The Board notes the
letters of support and the applicant’s accomplishments following his
elimination from IFT. Specifically, the applicant is to be commended on
his Distinguished Graduate status upon graduation from Joint Undergraduate
Navigator Training. However, the majority of the Board is not persuaded
that he should be given another opportunity to compete for pilot training.
As the Board previously determined, the applicant was given ample
opportunity to complete IFT. The majority recognizes that the applicant
had various interruptions during his training, but it would appear that he
was given waivers for additional training, and yet was unable to
successfully complete the training. While the majority can understand the
applicant’s disappointment in not completing this training, he has not
established that he was treated unfairly or inequitably with regard to his
training. In view of the foregoing and in the absence of evidence to the
contrary, the majority of the Board finds no compelling basis upon which to
recommend granting the requested relief.
_________________________________________________________________
THE BOARD DETERMINES THAT:
A majority of the panel finds insufficient evidence of error or injustice
and recommends the application be denied.
_________________________________________________________________
The following members of the Board considered this application in Executive
Session on 10 September 2003, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603:
Mr. Albert F. Lowas, Jr., Panel Chair
Mr. James E. Short, Member
Mr. Laurence M. Groner, Member
By a majority vote, the Board recommended denial of the application. Mr.
Lowas voted to grant the applicant’s request and did submit a Minority
Report. The following documentary evidence pertaining to AFBCMR BC-2002-
02568 was considered:
Exhibit F. Record of Proceedings, dated 19 December 2002,
w/atchs.
Exhibit G. Applicant’s Letter, dated 30 June 2003, w/atchs.
Exhibit H. Minority Report.
ALBERT F. LOWAS
Panel Chair
AFBCMR BC-2002-02568
MEMORANDUM FOR THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, AIR FORCE BOARD
FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS (AFBCMR)
SUBJECT: AFBCMR Application of
I have carefully reviewed the evidence of record and the
recommendation of the Board members. A majority found that applicant had
not provided sufficient evidence of error or injustice and recommended the
case be denied. I concur with that finding and their conclusion that
relief is not warranted. Accordingly, I accept their recommendation that
the application be denied.
Please advise the applicant accordingly.
JOE G. LINEBERGER
Director
Air Force Review Boards Agency
MEMORANDUM FOR EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, AIR FORCE BOARD FOR
CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS (AFBCMR)
FROM: AFBCMR
1535 Command Drive
EE Wing, 3rd Floor
Andrews AFB, MD 20762-7002
SUBJECT:
In Executive Session on 10 September 2003, we considered the
applicant’s request for reconsideration to allow him the opportunity to
compete for Joint Specialized Undergraduate Pilot Training (JSUPT). A
majority of the Board recommended denial of the requests. I disagree with
their recommendation.
The applicant was twice eliminated from the Introductory Flight
Training (IFT) for his failure in the flight evaluation attempts. His
commander recommended disenrollment from IFT, that the applicant not be
considered for reinstatement in this course at a later date, and that he be
considered for undergraduate navigator training or undergraduate air battle
manager training.
However, I believe that the new evidence provided by the applicant is
sufficient evidence to warrant favorable action in his appeal. In
particular, I note the letter submitted by the applicant’s former commander
who initially eliminated him from IFT indicating that the applicant’s
training was interrupted with breaks in training that significantly
affected his IFT completion. These breaks in training were a result of
things out of his control and included changes of civilian flying training
instructors, greater than normal bad weather periods, and events and
subsequent duties required of him following the September 11th attacks.
The commander states that on the basis of the breaks in the applicant’s
training, his demonstrated ability to excel in the USAF flying programs,
the completion of a FAA private pilot’s license, and his overall officer
qualities, the applicant should be given the opportunity to complete for
JSUPT in the future. In view of the above, I agree with the applicant’s
former commander and believe that the recommendation on the AETC Form 126A,
dated 3 May 2002, Section III, Block 3, should be changed from “should not
be considered for reinstatement in this course at a later date” to “should
be considered for reinstatement in this course at a later date” to allow
him to be considered for future Specialized Undergraduate Pilot Training
(SUPT).
ALBERT F. LOWAS
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 | 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...
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 | CY2002 | BC-2002-02902
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. Wing Commanders are the final elimination Approval Authority for undergraduate flying...
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 | 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 | 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 | CY2005 | BC-2005-02037
According to DOF skill-sets taught in SUPT are military-unique requirements. The AETC/DOF evaluation, with attachments, is at Exhibit D. _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: A copy of the Air Force evaluation was forwarded to applicant on 22 Jul 2005 for review and response. _________________________________________________________________ THE BOARD DETERMINES THAT: The applicant be notified that the evidence...
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 | 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...