RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS
IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2004-01066
INDEX CODE: 110.02
COUNSEL: NONE
HEARING DESIRED: NO
_________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:
His narrative reason for separation and separation code be changed.
_________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:
He voluntarily withdrew from Navigator training on 17 Nov 03. He was
not scheduled to begin his course of training until May 04. His
withdrawal five months prior to training did not justify the narrative
reason for his separation.
Prior to being reclassified, he requested a voluntary separation,
which was approved. He should not have received an involuntary
discharge.
In support of his appeal, the applicant provided extracts from his
military personnel records.
Applicant’s complete submission, with attachments, is at Exhibit A.
_________________________________________________________________
STATEMENT OF FACTS:
Applicant was appointed a second lieutenant, Reserve of the Air Force,
on 19 Sep 03 and was voluntarily ordered to extended active duty.
An AETC Form 126A indicates that on 18 Nov 03, the applicant’s
commander recommended he be eliminated from Navigator Introductory
Flight Training (NIFT) as a result of the applicant’s Drop on Request
(DOR) (self-initiated elimination). The applicant was eliminated from
NIFT on 19 Nov 03.
Applicant was honorably discharged on 29 Dec 03 under the provisions
of AFI 36-3207 (Failure to Complete a Course of Instruction). He was
credited with 5 years, 11 months, and 16 days of total active service.
_________________________________________________________________
AIR FORCE EVALUATION:
AETC/DOF indicated the applicant was enrolled in a formal flying
training course and elected to withdraw from training on his own
accord, which rendered him ineligible to apply for any further flying
training. Based on their review of the case, there is no error or
injustice warranting a change in the applicant’s records.
A complete copy of the AETC/DOF evaluation, with attachment, is at
Exhibit C.
AFPC/DPPRS recommended denial indicating that based on the evidence of
record, the applicant’s discharge was consistent with the procedural
and substantive requirements of the discharge regulation and was
within the discretion of the discharge authority. In their view, the
applicant did not submit any evidence or identify any errors or
injustices that occurred in the discharge processing. Furthermore, he
provided no facts warranting a change to his records.
A complete copy of the AFPC/DPPRS evaluation, with attachment, is at
Exhibit D.
_________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:
Copies of the Air Force evaluations were forwarded to applicant on 18
Jun 04 for review and response. As of this date, no response has been
received by this office (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. Sufficient relevant evidence has been presented to demonstrate the
existence of an injustice. The majority of the Board notes the
applicant was eliminated from NIFT after he voluntarily withdrew from
training, which ultimately resulted in his involuntary separation for
failure to complete a course of instruction. It also appears to the
majority that subsequent to his self-elimination from training and
prior to his discharge, the applicant submitted a request for
separation from the Air Force. After reviewing the facts and
circumstances of this case, the Board finds no evidence the
applicant's narrative reason for separation was improper or contrary
to the governing directives under which it was effected.
Notwithstanding this, the majority believes in view of the applicant’s
voluntary request to withdraw from training and to separate from the
Air Force, it would be in the interest of justice to afford him the
requested relief. In addition, the Board is of the opinion his
involuntary discharge should be changed to a voluntary one.
Accordingly, the majority of the Board recommends the applicant’s
records be corrected as set forth below.
_________________________________________________________________
THE BOARD RECOMMENDS THAT:
The pertinent military records of the Department of the Air Force
relating to APPLICANT, be corrected to show that, on 29 Dec 03, he was
voluntarily discharged under the provisions of AFI 36-3208
(Secretarial Authority), with a separation code of “KFF.”
_________________________________________________________________
The following members of the Board considered AFBCMR Docket Number BC-
2004-01066 in Executive Session on 22 Jul 04, under the provisions of
AFI 36-2603:
Mr. Laurence M. Groner, Panel Chair
Ms. Cheryl V. Jacobson, Member
Ms. Jean A. Reynolds, Member
By a majority vote, the Board voted to correct the records, as
recommended. Mr. Groner voted to deny the applicant’s request to
change his narrative reason for separation and separation code but did
not desire to submit a minority report. The Board unanimously voted
to recommend the applicant’s involuntary discharge be changed to a
voluntary discharge. The following documentary evidence was
considered:
Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 29 Mar 04, w/atchs.
Exhibit B. Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
Exhibit C. Letter, AETC/DOF, dated 28 May 04, w/atch.
Exhibit D. Letter, AFPC/DPPRS, dated 14 Jun 04, w/atch.
Exhibit E. Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 18 Jun 04.
LAURENCE M. GRONER
Panel Chair
AFBCMR BC-2004-01066
MEMORANDUM FOR THE CHIEF OF STAFF
Having received and considered the recommendation of the Air
Force Board for Correction of Military Records and under the authority
of Section 1552, Title 10, United States Code (70A Stat 116), it is
directed that:
The pertinent military records of the Department of the Air
Force relating to , be corrected to show that, on 29 Dec 03, he was
voluntarily discharged under the provisions of AFI 36-3208
(Secretarial Authority), with a separation code of “JFF.”
JOE G. LINEBERGER
Director
Air Force Review Boards Agency
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...
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...
AF | BCMR | CY2004 | BC-2003-03275
SGPS supports the applicant’s request to have his records corrected to show elimination based on a medical diagnoses rather than SIE. However, if the Board’s decision is to grant the applicant’s request, his record may be changed to show elimination from JSUNT as a medical disqualification. We note that HQ AETC/SGPS (Exhibit B) supports the applicant’s request for correction of his record and the opportunity for him to apply for Undergraduate Pilot Training (UPT) consideration.
AF | BCMR | CY2005 | BC-2005-03120
Based on the documentation on file in the applicant’s master personnel records, the discharge was consistent with the procedural and substantive requirements of the discharge regulation, and was within the discretion of the discharge authority. AFPC/DPPRS noted that on 27 Aug 04, the AFBCMR directed the applicant’s records be corrected to show that, on 29 Dec 03, he was voluntarily discharged under the provisions of AFI 36-3208 (Secretarial Authority), with a separation code of “KFF.”...
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 | 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-2004-03546
The applicant’s complete submission, with attachments, is at Exhibit A. However, if the decision is to grant the requested relief, applicant’s elimination record from JSUNT must be expunged to allow him to compete for CSO training. As of this date, no response has been received by this office (Exhibit C).
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.
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.
We note that with the exception of the information regarding the change to the Navy’s training policy, all of the evidence provided by the applicant was available during our initial consideration of his request for reinstatement to pilot training. While it has been confirmed that the applicant would not have been eliminated from advance training in the Air Force for the error made in the Navy’s program and might possibly have not been eliminated from the Navy’s program under the Navy’s new...