RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS
IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: 02-03845
INDEX CODE: 115.00
COUNSEL: NONE
HEARING DESIRED: NO
_________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:
His Undergraduate Pilot Training (UPT) slot be reinstated.
_________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:
His UPT slot was revoked unfairly due to a failed Physical Fitness
Test (PFT).
In support of his request, the applicant submits a statement from a
retired registered nurse (RN). The applicant’s complete submission,
with attachment, is at Exhibit A.
_________________________________________________________________
STATEMENT OF FACTS:
The applicant’s Total Active Federal Commissioned Service Date
(TAFCSD) is 3 Jul 02. He is currently serving on active duty in the
grade of second lieutenant (O1), with an effective date and date of
rank of 2 May 02.
The remaining relevant facts pertaining to this application, extracted
from the applicant’s military records, are contained in the letter
prepared by the appropriate office of the Air Force at Exhibit C.
_________________________________________________________________
AIR FORCE EVALUATION:
AFOATS/JA recommends the application be denied. JA states that,
according to the AFOATS Form 22 (Cadet Personnel Action Request), the
applicant’s Undergraduate Pilot Slot (UPT) slot was revoked, not
solely due to his failure of the physical fitness test (PFT), but
because the applicant’s performance within the AFROTC program was
below what is expected of potential Air Force pilots. JA indicates
that the applicant alleges no error in his records, but rather alleges
unfair revocation of his UPT slot. The applicant has not submitted
sufficient evidence of probable material error or injustice to warrant
any action. The applicant’s UPT slot was revoked due to his overall
performance in the program; the PFT failure was just one part of his
substandard performance. There was no injustice. The AFOATS/JA
evaluation, with attachment, is at Exhibit C.
_________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:
A copy of the Air Force evaluation was forwarded to applicant on 19
December 2002 for review and response. As of this date, no response
has been 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. The applicant’s submission was
thoroughly reviewed and his contentions were duly noted. However, a
review of the evidence does not cause us to believe that the action
taken to revoke the applicant’s Undergraduate Pilot Training (UPT)
slot was erroneous, improper or an abuse of discretionary authority.
Apparently, the applicant’s UPT slot was revoked due to his overall
substandard performance within the AFROTC program and not just for his
physical fitness test (PFT) failure. We therefore agree with the
opinion and recommendation of the appropriate Air Force office of
primary responsibility and adopt the rationale expressed as the basis
for our decision that the applicant has failed to sustain his burden
that he 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 13 Mar 03, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603:
Mr. David W. Mulgrew, Panel Chair
Mr. Billy C. Baxter, Member
Mr. Clarence D. Long III, Member
The following documentary evidence was considered in connection with
AFBCMR Docket Number 02-03845.
Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 10 Nov 02, w/atchs.
Exhibit B. Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
Exhibit C. Letter, AFOATS/JA, dated 19 Dec 02.
Exhibit D. Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 19 Dec 02.
DAVID W. MULGREW
Panel Chair
AF | BCMR | CY2005 | BC-2005-02876
On this same date, his commander approved his request and advised the applicant of the consequences of his request. _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: Applicant states he made a verbal request for a medical waiver or a possible change in degree program. Therefore, after reviewing all the evidence provided, the Board is not persuaded the applicant’s rights were violated, or that he was treated any differently than...
AF | BCMR | CY2003 | BC-2002-01818A
ADDENDUM TO RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: 02-01818 INDEX CODE: 135.00, 102.00 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: YES _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS: In the applicant’s request for reconsideration, he requests that he regain his Undergraduate Pilot Training (UPT) slot at NAS Corpus Christi, and be given 10 warm-up flights in the T-34 and then placed in the T-44...
AF | BCMR | CY2004 | BC-2001-00122
On 20 May 97, the applicant was advised in writing of HQ AFROTC’s decision, and notified that he would be required to complete the PFT, 1.5 mile run, and meet weight and body fat standards for commissioning. In regards to the applicant’s allegation that the debt of $77,000 is disproportionate, he states that maintaining body fat standards is a training requirement specified in the AFROTC contract. Counsel also asserts that AFOATS/JA glosses over the fact that when the applicant was weighed...
AF | BCMR | CY2007 | BC-2007-00099
When applying for the AFROTC Potential Pilot Qualified (PPQ)/Potential Navigator Qualified (PNQ) Categorization Board, HQ AETC received the wrong paperwork (Flying Class I (FCI)/Commissioning Physical instead of the Department of Defense Medical Examination Review Board (DoDMERB) physical) from AFROTC, which may have contributed to his nonselection for pilot training. If provided the chance to compete against his peers during the FY 06 primary selection board, he would have been selected...
AF | BCMR | CY2004 | BC-2004-02064
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2004-02064 INDEX CODE: 115.00 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: YES _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: His Air Force Reserve Officer Training Corps (AFROTC) Undergraduate Pilot Training (UPT) slot be reinstated. A complete copy of the AFROTC/CC evaluation, with attachments, is at Exhibit C. AFPC/DPAO indicated they have no...
AF | BCMR | CY2006 | BC-2006-01135
Applicant’s complete submission, with attachments, is at Exhibit A. AFOATS/JA's complete copy of the evaluation is at Exhibit C. AFPC/DPAO makes no recommendation regarding the pilot training slot as HQ AFROTC conducted that selection board and is outside the active duty process; however, they would recommend the applicant complete navigator training as she was assessed into the Air Force as a navigator. However, since commissioning, she has obtained waivers to correct her disqualifying...
AF | BCMR | CY2006 | BC-2006-02408
Applicant’s complete submission, with attachment, is at Exhibit A. _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: The applicant states through her grandfather she was medically qualified for a commission in the Air Force, based on the physical examination conduced on 16 January 2004. Exhibit D. Letter, Applicant’s Grandfather, undated.
AF | BCMR | CY2005 | BC-2004-03074
_________________________________________________________________ AIR FORCE EVALUATION: HQ AFPC/DPAO advises that, since the applicant was selected by his commission source for a pilot slot during FY03 and was subsequently medically disqualified, his pilot slot was awarded to another individual from the list of AFROTC eligibles. We believe the possibility exists that, had the ETP package been forwarded in a timely manner, the applicant may not have lost his FY03 UPT slot. PEGGY E....
The applicant was discharged from the Air Force because he was not promoted to 1st lieutenant. He urges the Board to please grant this requested hearing so that the truth in this can be made known. After reviewing the evidence of record and the documentation submitted with this appeal, we note that the commander’s recommendation that the applicant was not qualified for promotion to 1st lieutenant was found legally sufficient and was approved by the Secretary of the Air Force.
AF | BCMR | CY2003 | BC-2003-00293
_________________________________________________________________ AIR FORCE EVALUATION: AETC/SGPS states that PPQ and PNQ are special selection boards held by HQ ROTC/RR to select those that by their ROTC entry physicals, could potentially be qualified for UPT or UNT. A complete copy of the evaluation is attached at Exhibit C. AFPC/DPAO states that based on the procedures in place at the time Det 880 forwarded the eligible pilot candidates to HQ ROTC, then, applicant did not meet the pilot...