RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS
IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2004-03434
XXXXXXX COUNSEL: NONE
XXXXXXX HEARING DESIRED: YES
_________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:
His Joint Specialized Undergraduate Navigator Training (JSUNT) elimination
action be expunged from the record to make him eligible to apply for USAF
Specialized Undergraduate Pilot Training (SUPT).
_________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:
He was eligible for rated duty according to current policy and he is in the
process of updating his Medical Flying Class I Physical. There is no
reason now that he should be ineligible for flying training. He aims to
prove this with his supporting documentation and asks the AFBCMR to
overturn his ineligibility status outlined in AFI 36-2205, Applying for
Flying, Air Battle Manager and Astronaut Training Program.
In support of request, applicant provided a personal letter, copies of
CNATRA-GEN Form 1542/13, Summary-Progress Review Board, memo to Det 1, 325
FW/DP, Naval Aviation Schools Command, AF Form 475, Education/Training
Report, memo, Det 1, 325 FW/DP, memo HQ 58 FS/CC, memo HQ AFPC/DPAOT3, AF
Form 215, Aircrew Training Candidate Data Summary, memo 33 OSS/CC and memo
33 FTW/CC.
Applicant’s complete submission, with attachments, is at Exhibit A.
_________________________________________________________________
STATEMENT OF FACTS:
Applicant was commissioned as a second lieutenant in the Air Force on 9 May
2001. He has been progressively promoted to the grade of first lieutenant.
The applicant entered Naval Aviation Schools Command, Naval Air Station,
Pensacola, Florida on 23 May 2001.
The applicant’s training was conducted under United States Navy (USN)
policy and guidance as outlined in a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU)
developed between USAF Air Education & Training Command (AETC) and USN
Chief of Naval Air Training (CNATRA) in support of joint undergraduate
flying training.
The applicant was enrolled in Aviation Preflight Indoctrination (API), the
first phase of JSUNT. API is primarily academic training structured to
prepare candidates for the flying phase of training. Applicant was
eliminated after one month of training. He failed the Aerodynamics mid-
term exam three times, and then failed the Aerodynamics final exam (4th
academic failure) with a 76.3% grade average. Minimum passing score for
CNATRA exams is 80%.
_________________________________________________________________
AIR FORCE EVALUATION:
AETC/DOF recommended no change to the applicant’s record. IAW CNATRA
policy spelled out in the applicant’s elimination document, the applicant
was no longer eligible to apply for future flying training programs. This
ineligibility is congruent with USAF policy as outlined in AFI 36-2205,
Applying for Flying Training, Air Battle Manager, and Astronaut Programs,
which stated individuals eliminated from training unless specifically
recommended for further flight training by the eliminating (approving)
authority are ineligible to apply for further flight training.
The MOU stated, “Student elimination will be based on host service
directives.” The applicant was eliminated from training in accordance with
CNATRA policy and instructions. According to CNATRA Instruction 1500.4F,
Student Naval Aviation Training and Administration Manual, student
performance will be reviewed for elimination after two academic failures.
After review by competent authority under CNATRA procedure (Progress Review
Board-PRB), applicant received additional training. After a fourth academic
failure, the applicant was eliminated from training with a 76.3% grade
average.
AETC/DOF complete evaluation is at Exhibit C.
AFPC/DPAO recommended no change to the applicant’s record and stated since
the applicant was selected by his commission source for JSUNT and was
subsequently eliminated for academic deficiency, that it would be in the
best interest of the Air Force to deny the applicant’s request to apply to
the active duty selection board for pilot or JSUNT training.
AFPC/DPAO complete evaluation is at Exhibit D.
_________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:
The applicant reviewed the Air Force evaluations and stated that despite
academic fundamentals, he believes he has the skills and abilities to meet
a UPT slot. This academic curriculum of UPT and UNT maybe somewhat
similar, but to draw the conclusion that if he did not complete one
curriculum, he was not able to complete the other, is not an all inclusive
statement.
In addition, he again respectfully disagrees with AETC/DOF recommendation.
He felt he had ample academic study and experience to warrant another
chance. If he had ever quit the program, he personally would not grant him
or anyone under that rationale another chance. The administrative
technician gave him the Statement of Understanding to sign. He recalls
refusing to sign it, despite the turmoil he was in emotionally at the time,
after a slight pause he told him he had no choice but to sign it as that
was the process - so he signed it. However, he did not quit, he gave it
his full effort. He had done a great amount of personal and professional
growth since his day of commissioning and that understanding had matured
him much. If the Board was to allow him to compete for UPT, and he
subsequently was selected, he assures the Board he would succeed at his
dream as he has overcome so many obstacles along the path he had taken in
his life.
Applicant’s complete response is at Exhibit F.
_________________________________________________________________
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. We took notice of the applicant's
complete submission in judging the merits of the case to include his
contentions that the magnitude of his personal issues during his training
distracted him enough to interrupt his academic focus. In this regard, the
Board noted the applicant received additional training and only after his
fourth academic failure was he eliminated from training with a 76.3% grade
average. Therefore, we agree with the opinions and recommendations of the
Air Force offices of primary responsibility and adopt its rationale as the
basis for our conclusion that the applicant has not been the victim of an
error or injustice. In view of the above, we find no compelling basis to
recommend granting the relief sought in this application.
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 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-2004-
03434 in Executive Session on 8 February 2005, under the provisions of AFI
36-2603:
Ms. B. J. White-Olson, Vice Chair
Mrs. Barbara R. Murray, Member
Ms. Janet I. Hassan, Member
The following documentary evidence was considered:
Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 1 Nov 04, w/atchs.
Exhibit B. Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
Exhibit C. Letter, AETC/DOF, dated 16 Nov 04, w/atchs.
Exhibit D. Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 10 Dec 04.
Exhibit E. Letter, Applicant, dated 15 Dec 04, w/atchs.
B. J. WHITE-OLSON
Panel Chair
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-2002-00937
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...
AF | BCMR | CY2005 | BC-2004-01709
The HQ AFPC/DPAO evaluation, with attachment, is at Exhibit D. _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATIONS: The applicant reviewed the advisory opinions and indicated that the only record stating he was unable to solo within 40 hours due to FTDs and was eliminated from the IFT program if the AETC Form 126A and it is a recommendation. As to the allegation he did not believe he was eliminated from IFT, the applicant signed a...
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 | 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 | 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 | 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 | CY2002 | BC-2001-02617
On the applicant’s Commander’s Review Record it clearly states the student should be disenrolled from training and should not be considered for reinstatement at a later date. When he applied for Undergraduate Flying Training (UFT) in 1995, he stated on the AF 215 and he informed his chain of command that he had been eliminated from the T-41 in 1994. The majority also does not understand the applicant’s failure to wear his glasses while in training which was clearly not the fault of the Air Force.
AF | BCMR | CY2011 | BC-2011-00606
The new procedures and AETC Form 139, Record of Commander's Review Action (Undergraduate Pilot Training) now allows for other options and leaves the return to UPT up to the discretion of the UPT commander. Had it been in use at the time of his elimination from pilot training, the AETC Form 139, Section III could have been used for his situation. The form states, "If recommended for elimination, the student should be considered for reinstatement in this course at a later date due to...
AF | BCMR | CY2006 | BC-2005-01178
During his Progress Check (PC) failure he did not receive an opportunity to Repeat Subtask the approach. Given his normal progress until the succession of failed checkrides, he received appropriate additional training which met command and unit standards. _________________________________________________________________ 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...