RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
             AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF:                       DOCKET NUMBER:  BC-2004-02126
                                       INDEX CODE:  115.02
      XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX                      COUNSEL: YES

      XXXXXXXXXXXX                           HEARING DESIRED:  YES

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

His flight records and aeronautical orders be corrected  to  reinstate  his
pilot rating and he be reassigned to  a  non-fighter  multi-place  aircraft
readiness training unit (RTU).  As an alternative, if the Board  finds  the
Flying  Evaluation  Board   (FEB)   recommendations   should   stand,   his
Undergraduate Pilot Training (UPT)-incurred Active Duty Service  Commitment
(ADSC) of 18 October 2011 be rescinded.  By amendment  at  Exhibit  E,  his
second and third ADSCs (10 June 2007 and 13 February 2005) also be waived.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

Eight of the eleven findings of the FEB used to deny him from transitioning
to a non-fighter multi-plane aircraft are exclusive  to  fighter  aircraft.
There is not sufficient evidence to support the FEB’s findings.

In support of his application, he provides a personal statement and  copies
of his Officer Performance Report (OPR) closing  27 November  2003;  COMACC
letter, dated 11  August  2003,  disqualifying  the  applicant  from  pilot
training; electronic  communications  concerning  his  case;  training  and
performance reports; pilot training video tapes (3); transcripts  from  the
FEB proceedings (8 volumes); and his P0404A Promotion  Recommendation  Form
(PRF).  The applicant’s complete submission with attachments is at  Exhibit
A.

_________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

According to the military personnel data system, the applicant is currently
serving on active duty with a Total Active Federal Military Service Date of
1 February 1996 and a first ADSC date of 18 October 2011.  He has a  second
and third ADSCs of 10 June 2007 and 13 February 2005.  His current grade is
captain with an effective date and a date of rank of 17 January 2000.   The
applicant holds an  aeronautical  rating  of  navigator  with  an  Aviation
Service Date of 25 March 1996.

The applicant entered A-10 Initial Qualification Training on 15 March 2002.
 According to his Education/Training Report, dated 28  November  2002,  the
applicant was eliminated for flying deficiency prior to his  completion  of
the 20-week course.  An FEB was convened 25-27 November 2002,  to  consider
evidence concerning the applicant’s professional qualification for aviation
service, evaluate his potential  for  future  rated  duties,  and  to  make
recommendations regarding his future flying duties to  higher  authorities.
The FEB found:

      1.  The applicant had not previously met an FEB.


      2.  The   applicant   had   not   previously   requested    voluntary
disqualification from aviation service.


      3.  The applicant had failed to meet flying standards while  enrolled
in a formal flying training course by exhibiting dangerously low levels  of
situational awareness at various  times  throughout  the  training  course,
affecting his weapons delivery,  adherence  to  training  rules,  judgment,
flight discipline, and safety.


      4.  The applicant failed to meet flying standards while enrolled in a
formal flying training course by flying the maximum allowable number  of  X
sorties  due  to  student  non-progression  in  the  A-10   Pilot   Initial
Qualification Course.


      5.  The applicant demonstrated a general lack of knowledge during the
training  course  in  areas   including   systems   operations,   emergency
procedures, and the local airspace.


      6.  The applicant lied to his instructor during an  SA-5  sortie  and
during the subsequent debrief about one switch error that he  committed  on
Range 3.  He confessed to his error the following day and testified to  the
FEB that he regretted the serious lapse in judgment and never did it again.



      7.  The applicant did not possess the requisite  aviation  skills  to
transition into a multi-place non-fighter aircraft as a pilot.


      8.  The applicant would  require  continuous  additional  supervision
throughout his flying training if he were to remain qualified for  aviation
service.


Wing, Numbered Air Force, and Major Command level legal reviews  found  the
findings and recommendations of the FEB to be legally  sufficient.   On  11
August 2003, after wing (convening authority) and Numbered Air Force  (NAF)
concurrence with the FEB  recommendations,  the  Commander  of  Air  Combat
Command  (COMACC),  (decision  authority),  directed   the   applicant   be
disqualified from continued aviation service as a pilot, be allowed to wear
the aviation pilot wings, and remain qualified for aviation  service  as  a
navigator.

_________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

COMACC reviewed the  applicant’s  case  file  and  recommends  disapproval.
COMACC states the recommendations of the FEB  are  advisory  only  and  not
binding.  Regardless of the recommendations of  the  FEB,  COMACC  has  the
authority to retain or disqualify the  applicant  from  rated  service,  to
decide whether to continue  him  to  another  airframe,  and  to  determine
whether he should continue wearing the  aviation  badge.   It  is  COMACC’s
opinion that the applicant’s requests have  no  basis  and;  therefore,  he
stands by the findings and recommendations of  the  FEB,  the  professional
review and recommendations of  the  rated  functional  experts,  the  legal
review for  sufficiency  of  evidence,  and  the  decision  to  permanently
disqualify the applicant as a pilot in any  type  of  Air  Force  aircraft.
COMACC states that even if the FEB’s recommendation had been different, the
final decision would still remain the same.  In addition, a  grant  of  the
requested relief would have no effect on the COMACC decision to  disqualify
the applicant from aviation service as a  pilot.   The  COMACC  evaluation,
with attachments, is at Exhibit C.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

The evidence given to COMACC was skewed  and  editorialized.   He  was  not
given a fair chance during his pilot training and later he was not given  a
fair trial during his FEB.   Although  the  proceedings  of  the  FEB  were
supposed to be  non-adversarial,  the  deficiencies  presented  during  the
hearing made it up the chain of command and made it so.  The Air Force  has
a substantial monetary and time investment in him.  His foremost desire  is
to have the opportunity to return that investment as a pilot.  However,  if
the Board does not find that possible, he respectfully requests  the  Board
take into consideration his completion of his Navigator ADSC along with his
close to nine years of honorable service in the Air Force and  rescind  his
UPT ADSC of 18 October  2011.   Additionally,  since  his  Advanced  Flying
Training (AFT) ADSC (10 June 2007) and  his  Permanent  Change  of  Station
(PCS) ADSC (13 February 2005)  are  a  direct  result  of  him  being  non-
voluntarily called into the  navigator  field  and  PCSd,  he  respectfully
requests that those two subsequent ADSCs be rescinded as well  so  that  he
can move back to Puerto Rico and start another career outside  of  the  Air
Force. The applicant’s rebuttal, with attachments is at 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 applicant’s records  indicate  he  incurred
two ADSCs for his pilot training, an ADSC of 18 October 2011 for UPT and an
ADSC of 10 June 2007 for AFT.  We note the applicant’s desire to be a pilot
in any Air Force aircraft and his  assertions  that  eight  of  the  eleven
findings of the FEB used to deny him from  transitioning  to  a  non-flight
multi-plane aircraft are exclusive to fighter aircraft.  ACC/CC is  adamant
that because of the type of failures  committed  by  the  applicant  during
training, he would not be approved to fly any Air Force aircraft as a pilot
and without strong evidence by the applicant indicating that this  decision
represents an abuse of discretionary authority or was contrary to the  best
interests of the Air  Force  and  the  individual  concerned,  we  are  not
inclined to reverse that decision.  ACC/DOT has  indicated  that  since  he
failed AFT, they would not hold the applicant to his ADSC of 10 June  2007;
however, they would hold him to his ADSC of  18 October  2011  for  passing
UPT.  However, since the applicant cannot be utilized as a pilot in any Air
Force aircraft, partial relief with respect to his UPT ADSC  is  warranted.
In view of the above, it is our opinion that  the  applicant’s  records  be
corrected as indicated below.

4.  The applicant's case is adequately documented and it has not been shown
that a personal appearance with or without counsel will materially  add  to
our understanding of the issues involved.  Therefore,  the  request  for  a
hearing is not favorably considered.

________________________________________________________________

THE BOARD RECOMMENDS THAT:

The pertinent military records of the Department of the Air Force  relating
to APPLICANT be corrected to show that his Active Duty  Service  Commitment
(ADSC) of 18 October 2011, incurred  as  a  result  of  his  completion  of
Undergraduate Pilot Training (UPT) be declared void.

_________________________________________________________________

The following members of the Board considered this application in Executive
Session on 9 February 2005, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603:

            Mr. Roscoe Hinton Jr., Panel Chair
            Ms. Ann-Cecile M. McDermott, Member
            Mr. Michael V. Barbino, Member

All members voted to correct the records, as  recommended.   The  following
documentary evidence was considered in connection with AFBCMR Docket Number
BC-2004-02126:

      Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 1 Jul 04, with attachments.
      Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
      Exhibit C.  Letter, ACC/CC, dated 10 Aug 04.
      Exhibit D.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 20 Aug 04.
      Exhibit D.  Applicant’s Rebuttal, dated 14 Sep 04.




                                        MICHAEL V. BARBINO
                                        Acting Panel Chair


AFBCMR BC-2004-02126




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 XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX, be corrected to show that his Active
Duty Service Commitment (ADSC) of 18 October 2011, incurred as a result of
his completion of Undergraduate Pilot Training (UPT) be declared void.







JOE G. LINEBERGER

Director

Air Force Review Boards Agency