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 date.”
_________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:
After beginning Specialized Unit Pilot Training (SUPT) he allowed
outside stresses to affect his performance to the extent that, when
combined with the stress of SUPT, he lost his motivation and
questioned the path he was following. He takes responsibility for his
action and states that his application should not be misconstrued as
making excuses. He requests a second chance at SUPT to enable him to
serve his country as an officer and pilot.
In support of his appeal, the applicant has provided a narrative, a
letter of support from his previous commander, and copies of flight
training records.
His complete submission, with attachments, is at Exhibit A.
_________________________________________________________________
STATEMENT OF FACTS:
Applicant entered SUPT at Vance Air Force Base, OK, as an Air National
Guard (ANG) student assigned to the 181st Fighter Wing, Indiana ANG
(IN ANG). He began SUPT on 1 May 2001 and submitted request for drop
on request (DOR), otherwise known as a self-initiated elimination and
consequently entered the Commander’s Review process and was duly
eliminated from SUPT on 29 June 2001.
_________________________________________________________________
AIR FORCE EVALUATION:
AETC/DOF reviewed this application and recommended denial. They note
that the AETC Form 126A indicates the applicant should not be
considered for reinstatement in the course (SUPT) at a later date.
DOF notes the applicant’s many problems with T-37 primary training to
include being sick for the first four of his five sorties, failing two
emergency procedures ‘stand-ups’ (spontaneous oral testing), and an
over all Unsatisfactory grade on his seventh training flight. DOF
notes that AETC Instruction 36-2205 is clear on it’s guidance
concerning the Commander’s Review process and drop-on-request self
-eliminations. Not only may the student not reapply for SUPT at a
later date, he also is no longer eligible to apply for any other type
of flying training. DOF concludes that students cannot be allowed to
enter or terminate training at a whim - both from the perspective of
training costs passed on to taxpayers and the safety of both students
and instructors in the flight environment.
DOF states that there is no evidence of error or injustice that
substantiates a reinstatement of eligibility for any further flight
training for the applicant. DOF maintains that the applicant’s AETC
Form 126A stand as written.
DOF’s 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
16 May 2003 for review and comment within 30 days. As of this date,
no response has been received by this office.
_________________________________________________________________
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 evidence of record supports
the comments of AETC/DOF, Aircrew Training and Standardization
Division. While we sympathize with the applicant’s situation, as
revealed by his personal statement, and do not question his motive for
requesting a self elimination, we can find no evidence of error in
this case and after thoroughly reviewing the documentation that has
been submitted in support of applicant's appeal, we do not believe he
has suffered from an injustice. Therefore, based on the available
evidence of record, we find no basis upon which to favorably consider
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-
2003-00938 in Executive Session on 5 August 2003, under the provisions
of AFI 36-2603:
Mr. Vaughn E. Schlunz, Panel Chair
Mr. Mike Novel, Member
Ms. Jean A. Reynolds, Member
The following documentary evidence was considered:
Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 10 Mar 03, w/atchs.
Exhibit B. Letter, AETC/DOF, dated 5 May 03.
Exhibit C. Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 16 May 03.
VAUGHN E. SCHLUNZ
Panel Chair
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 | CY2004 | BC-2003-03204
His completion of both the Aerobatic Course and Emergency Confidence Course should further demonstrate his resolve. It would be expected that students initially occupying off-base housing would need to move one time if they accept an offer for on-base quarters at some later date. The FY04 classes to date, with Dex-scope use allowed, the success rate is 88%.
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-2003-02805
DOF’s complete evaluation, with attachments, is at Exhibit D. _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: Copies of the Air Force evaluations were forwarded to the applicant on 23 April 2004 for review and comment within 30 days. _________________________________________________________________ THE BOARD DETERMINES THAT: The applicant be notified that the evidence presented did not demonstrate the existence of material error...
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-2002-02568A
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 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 | CY2011 | BC-2011-02211
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2011-02211 COUNSEL: NO HEARING DESIRED: YES _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: His Air Education and Training Command (AETC) Form 126A, Record of Commanders Review Action, be amended to include the remarks of the Eliminating Authority recommending him for consideration for reinstatement into Undergraduate Pilot Training (UPT) at...
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.