RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS
IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2004-01805
INDEX NUMBER: 115.00
XXXXXXX COUNSEL: None
XXXXXXX HEARING DESIRED: Yes
_________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:
He be reinstated into the Fixed Wing Qualification (FWQ) program or
placed into the Joint Specialized Undergraduate Pilot Training (JSUPT)
program.
In the alternative, he requests that his Army aeronautical rating be
converted to an Air Force equivalent so that he may secure a position
with an Air Force Reserve or Air National Guard unit.
_________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:
He was placed in a training environment designed for pilots with more
flight hours and experience than he possessed. He was granted the
waiver to enter FWQ training without the prerequisite flying hours
needed. As a result he has been completely removed from flying status
and has been precluded from continuing his aviation career in the Air
Force as a fully qualified helicopter pilot.
When the decision was made to remove him from the FWQ program, it was
with the understanding that he would be transferred to the JSUPT.
When he reported for his anticipated start date for JSUPT, he learned
that he would not be transferred/enrolled into JSUPT because HQ AETC
had denied his enrollment. The explanation given was that he had
transferred into the Air Force Reserve as a rated aviator from the
Army with an Aeronautical Rating Board (ARB) conversion and at the
time of his removal from FWQ, he was older than the JSUPT eligible
age. He notes that at the time he was told this, there were ARB Army
rated aviators and former navigators who were older than him and had
received age waivers and were in training. He was later informed that
he would have to continue his training in FWQ. He was disadvantaged
when he returned to training because he had been previously directed
not to participate in any aviation flight training. His instructors
also told him that he had a low probability of completing the program.
He was not able to maintain the expected flying proficiency level and
in Dec 02 was eliminated from FWQ and had a Flying Evaluation Board
(FEB) pending. Although he received orders prohibiting him from
wearing Air Force Wings, he was never given a chance to present or
plead his case before the FEB.
He was disqualified from all aviation service per AFI 11-402,
paragraph 3.6.2.1 because he failed to meet FWQ course standards. He
notes that according to the same AFI in paragraph 2.14, Table 2.1, the
Air Force should not have processed and transferred him from the Army
National Guard aviation service. He further notes that students
enrolled in JSUPT are required to attend initial flight training,
which better prepares them for the rigorous training of JSUPT. He did
not have this opportunity.
The applicant provides an overview of additional training he has
received and notes the support he has among his chain of command for
enrollment into JSUPT. The applicant also submits a letter of support
from a student that was in the FWQ class behind him who recounts what
he believes was unprofessional conduct on the part of some instructor
pilots toward the applicant.
The applicant’s complete submission, with attachments, is at Exhibit
A.
_________________________________________________________________
STATEMENT OF FACTS:
The applicant was appointed a first lieutenant in the Air Force
Reserve on 22 Mar 02 after he transferred from the Army Reserve/Army
National Guard. He was granted an Aeronautical Rating Board waiver
for award of a pilot rating based on his record of 270 hours rotary
wing flying hours as an Army National Guard helicopter pilot. The
waiver was contingent upon the applicant completing FWQ training. The
applicant entered training on 8 Jul 02. On 2 Dec 02, the applicant
was recommended by his squadron commander for elimination from
training due to flying deficiencies. The group commander concurred
that the deficiency was sufficient for elimination and recommended
that the applicant be disenrolled from training. He also recommended
that the applicant not be considered for reinstatement at a later date
and that he not be considered for undergraduate navigator training.
The applicant was recommended for consideration of technical training
and consideration of non-rated operations training. On 16 Dec 02, the
Wing commander approved the applicant’s elimination from training due
to flying deficiencies.
_________________________________________________________________
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.
While they recognize that the applicant was incorrectly granted an ARB
waiver and awarded the Air Force pilot rating contingent upon
successful completion of the FWQ course, they do not believe that this
oversight warrants conversion of the applicant’s Army rating into an
Air Force pilot rating.
The complete evaluation is at Exhibit C.
AETC/DOF recommends that the applicant not be reinstated into AF fixed-
wing training or his Army rotary wing rating directly converted into
an Air Force helicopter rating. They further recommend that the
applicant’s records be expunged of the records referencing the
previous ARB, ARB waiver, FWQ training, FWQ elimination, and
subsequent revocation of his aeronautical order. If the applicant
believes he now meets flying experience criteria to warrant an Air
Force pilot (helicopter only) rating, he must find a sponsoring unit
with an operational flying position. He may then submit an
application for an Aeronautical Rating Board.
If the Board decides to grant the relief requested, they recommend,
based on the applicant’s limited flying experience, that he be entered
into JSUPT. However, the applicant must first secure a flying
position with an Air Force Reserve or Air National Guard fixed-wing
unit before entry into training. The applicant will also require an
age waiver.
The complete evaluation is at Exhibit D.
_________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:
In his initial response to the Air Force evaluations, applicant asked
for clarification of what AETC/DOF’s specific recommendation in his
case is (Exhibit F). The Board advised the applicant of its
understanding of AETC/DOF’s recommendation in the applicant’s case
(Exhibit G).
In his final response to the Air Force evaluations, the applicant
indicated he is in compliance with the guidelines set forth in
AETC/DOF’s evaluation. He states that he has secured a flying
position with a Reserve unit and requests he be granted an age waiver
if reinstated to training. The applicant resubmits the letters of
support for his reinstatement into flying training provided with his
initial application.
The applicant’s complete response is at Exhibit H.
_________________________________________________________________
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 error or injustice. After reviewing the complete
evidence of record, including the analysis and recommendations of
the Air Force offices of primary responsibility (OPRs), we believe
the applicant should be granted relief with certain conditions
imposed. We note that both Air Force advisories conclude the Air
Force erred in granting the applicant an Aeronautical Rating Board
(ARB) waiver and allowing his entry into the Fixed Wing
Qualification course. Both Air Force OPRs propose courses of
action whereby the applicant could again apply for an ARB waiver.
However, in our view, the error that allowed the applicant to be
placed into training for which he was not qualified resulted in his
not being afforded a fair opportunity for success and has caused
him valuable time. We believe a more equitable solution would be
to expunge the applicant’s record, as recommended by HQ AETC/DOF,
of all references to the previous ARB, the ARB waiver, his
acceptance and elimination from FWQ training, and the subsequent
revocation of his aeronautical order. Further, the applicant
should be placed into Joint Specialized Undergraduate Pilot
Training provided he first secures a qualifying flying position
with an Air Force Reserve or Air National Guard fixed-wing unit.
We also recommend he be granted any necessary waivers such as age
and total federal commissioned service if required. We also concur
with the determination and rationale of both Air Force OPRs the
applicant’s Army aeronautical rating should not be converted to an
Air Force rating. Therefore, in the interest of equity and
justice, we recommend the applicant’s records be corrected as
indicated below.
___________________________________________________________________
THE BOARD RECOMMENDS THAT:
The pertinent military records of the Department of the Air Force
relating to APPLICANT, be corrected to show that:
a. All documents and references to his application to the
Aeronautical Rating Board (ARB), the waiver granted by the ARB, his
selection and entry into Fixed Wing Qualification (FWQ) training,
his elimination from FWQ training, and the revocation of his
aeronautical order be declared void and removed from his records.
b. Provided he secures a flying position with an Air Force
Reserve or Air National Guard flying unit, he then be entered into
the first available Specialized Undergraduate Pilot Training (SUPT)
class.
c. He be granted any necessary waivers, such as an age
waiver and Total Active Federal Military Service waiver, required
for his entry into SUPT.
___________________________________________________________________
The following members of the Board considered Docket Number BC-2004-
01805 in Executive Session on 5 October 2004, under the provisions
of AFI 36-2603:
Mr. Richard A. Peterson, Panel Chair
Mr. James W. Russell, III, Member
Ms. Peggy E. Gordon, Member
All members voted to correct the records, as recommended. The
following documentary evidence was considered:
Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 15 Apr 04, w/atchs.
Exhibit B. Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
Exhibit C. Memorandum, HQ USAF/XOOT, dated 6 Jul 04.
Exhibit D. Memorandum, HQ AETC/DOF, dated 9 Aug 04,
w/atchs.
Exhibit E. Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 13 Aug 04.
Exhibit F. Letter, Applicant, dated 21 Aug 04.
Exhibit G. Letter, AFBCMR, dated 1 Sep 04.
Exhibit H. Letter, Applicant, dated 3 Sep 04, w/atchs.
RICHARD A. PETERSON
Panel Chair
AFBCMR BC-2004-01805
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 XXXXXXX, XXXXXXX, be corrected to show that:
a. All documents and references to his application to
the Aeronautical Rating Board (ARB), the waiver granted by the ARB,
his selection and entry into Fixed Wing Qualification (FWQ)
training, his elimination from FWQ training, and the revocation of
his aeronautical order be, and hereby are, declared void and
removed from his records.
b. Provided he secures a flying position with an Air
Force Reserve or Air National Guard flying unit, he then be entered
into the first available Specialized Undergraduate Pilot Training
(SUPT) class.
c. He be granted any necessary waivers, such as an age
waiver and Total Active Federal Military Service waiver, required
for his entry into SUPT.
JOE G. LINEBERGER
Director
Air Force Review Boards Agency
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 | 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 | 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.
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 | CY2014 | BC 2014 00305
His records be corrected to reflect he was awarded the wings and rating as a fixed wing pilot. Apparently, and unknown to the applicant, the Air National Guard (ANG) decided not to follow the Air Force Predator entry requirements as outlined in AFI 11-402, Aviation and Parachutist Service Aeronautical Ratings and Aviation Badges, instead they decided he could not enter Predator training without first completing a fixed wing aviation training program; FWQ. Also significant is the unanimous...
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...
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 | 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 | CY2011 | BC-2011-03725
However, no eligible RPA pilot will be able to take advantage of this due to the way one year orders are allocated and the delay in the release of the FY11 guidance. In support of his request, the applicant provides copies of his Air National Guard (ANG) FY11 ACP Program Announcement and Implementation Policy, aeronautical order, FY11 ACP Agreement Statement of Understanding (SOU), and other documents in support of his application. ...