RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
             AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF:      DOCKET NUMBER:  BC-2005-01840
            INDEX CODE:
            COUNSEL:  Mr. George E. Day
            HEARING DESIRED:  YES

MANDATORY CASE COMPLETION DATE: 12 Dec 06

________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

His disqualification from aviation service be reversed.

________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

A Flying Evaluation Board (FEB) convened to investigate an alleged  lack  of
rated proficiency while flying C-37 aircraft.  The  board,  which  consisted
of five lieutenant colonels, all pilots, spent over 23 hours evaluating  the
evidence relevant to his case.  They found that there was no cause  for  his
removal from flying status and recommended he remain qualified for  aviation
service as a pilot and be requalified in his previous  weapons  system,  the
KC-135R.  The decision was supported at all levels up  the  chain  including
the 86OG, 86AW, and 3AF/CC.  However, the USAFE/CC overturned  the  findings
and  recommendations  of  the  board  and   directed   he   be   permanently
disqualified from aviation service.  He appealed  to  the  succeeding  USAFE
commander to reconsider this decision but he declined to intervene.

He has a flawless flying record throughout his eleven years service  in  the
KC-135 aircraft from 1987  through  1997.   During  that  period  he  earned
several medals and served as an instructor and evaluator.  He  never  failed
a check ride in the KC-135 receiving 15 consecutive "Q1"  ratings  including
"Exceptionally Qualified"  and  "Outstanding  Performance"  ratings  on  his
final two KC-135 evaluations.  He was out of the cockpit for more than  four
years before his selection as a C-37 pilot.  During his initial training  he
did very well in academics and although he felt rusty at the  start  of  the
simulator training, he progressed and improved rapidly.   After  his  fourth
simulator flight it was noted that he showed  "above  average  progression."
It was nearly two months later before his  first  flight  in  the  aircraft.
The training program was characterized by poor continuity  due  to  aircraft
schedule, bad weather, and limited instructor availability.   He  had  three
separate breaks in training  of  two  weeks  or  longer.   On  many  of  his
training flights the low visibility  limited  the  training  that  could  be
accomplished.   As  a  result  of  these  factors,  applicant  believes  his
performance in the aircraft suffered.  However, he worked  hard  and  passed
his initial qualification check ride with a single downgrade  Q1.   He  flew
numerous operational DV airlift missions into numerous airfields  throughout
the European theater.  One of the deficiencies in the  training  program  is
that it had focused exclusively on how  to  fly  the  aircraft  and  not  on
fundamentals of accomplishing the DV airlift mission.  In addition,  he  was
never given the opportunity to perform  basic  copilot  duties.   His  first
operational mission was the first time in four and a half years that he  had
been responsible for making radio calls.

After two months, he was given a no-notice  check  ride.   This  check  ride
consisted of numerous tasks he had neither  seen  nor  accomplished  in  the
aircraft since his initial qualification check ride.  He received a Q3,  his
first check ride failure since a T-37 check ride 13  years  earlier  and  he
was never given the opportunity to take a recheck.  It was never the  intent
of the instructors or leadership of his squadron for  his  case  to  end  up
before an FEB.  His commander submitted a package for a waiver  of  FEB  but
the package was rejected at USAFE.  During the FEB it was  the  overwhelming
consensus amongst those that testified that he should remain  qualified  for
aviation service and returned to the KC-135 cockpit.  The five member  panel
concurred unanimously.  With his past experience in  the  KC-135,  applicant
is confident he would experience no problems  getting  requalified  in  this
aircraft.

In support of his request, applicant  provided  a  personal  statement,  his
counsel's  statement,  and  documentation  associated  with  his  FEB.   His
complete submission, with attachments, is at Exhibit A.

________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

Data extracted from the Personnel Data System  reflects  the  applicant  was
appointed a second lieutenant on 29 May 85 and was  voluntarily  ordered  to
extended active duty on that same date.  He has been progressively  promoted
to the grade of major, having assumed that grade effective and with  a  date
of rank of 1 Feb 97.

An FEB  convened  at  Ramstein  AB,  GE  on  16  Oct  02,  to  consider  the
applicant's professional qualifications as a pilot and make  recommendations
regarding his future performance of flying duties.  After  consideration  of
all the evidence presented, the board recommended he  remain  qualified  for
aviation service as a pilot and he be retrained in the KC-135r.  On  13  Jun
03, USAFE/CC after reviewing the findings and  recommendations  of  the  FEB
directed he be disqualified from aviation service.

________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

USAFE/A3 recommends denial.  A3  states  the  applicant  incorrectly  stated
that the board's recommendations were supported all the way  up  the  chain.
In fact, 3 AF/CC initially agreed with the FEB but  retracted  his  original
letter and  wrote  a  more  detailed  letter  stating  the  reasons  why  he
disagreed with the FEB  findings.   The  3  AF/CC  was  very  clear  in  his
detailed letter  why  he  recommended  the  applicant  be  disqualified  for
aviation service as a pilot.  USAFE/CC was the final decision authority  and
there is no evidence in the record to show  any  injustices  in  this  case.
USAFE/JA conducted a third legal review of this case and found the  decision
to disqualify legally sufficient.

The USAFE/A3 evaluation is at Exhibit D.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

Counsel responded that there  was  no  substantial  evidence  the  applicant
failed to  prepare  for  his  flying  training.   Flight  training  must  be
adequate and consistent.  He  was  thrust  into  operational  flights  which
required talking to strange controllers that were hard to  understand  while
flying high powered aircraft that flew like fighter jets.   An  outsider  to
this case,  the  USAFE  Standard  Evaluator  insisted  over  the  squadron's
recommendation that he meet an FEB.  When the FEB disagreed,  the  case  was
elevated to General M---, not because of the applicant's flying skills,  but
because the Standard Evaluator wanted him  to  be  grounded.   General  M---
made a bad decision and agreed for personal reasons, not  Air  Force  needs.
Major General W--- agreed in his review that the shortcomings of  the  309th
created an "unfavorable situation" for the applicant, which  needed  fixing.


Counsel's 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  that  would  warrant  reinstatement  into
aviation service.  We took notice  of  the  applicant's  and  his  counsel's
complete submission in judging the merits of the  case;  however,  we  agree
with the opinion and recommendation of  the  Air  Force  office  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  cases
of this nature, we are not inclined to disturb the judgments  of  commanding
officers absent clear evidence  of  an  error  or  injustice,  or  a  strong
showing of abuse of discretionary authority.  We are not  persuaded  by  the
evidence provided that the appropriate  standards  or  procedures  were  not
applied, the applicant was denied rights and  privileges  to  which  he  was
entitled,  or  that  the   commander's   determination   was   improper   or
inappropriately rendered.  Therefore, in the absence of persuasive  evidence
to the contrary, 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-2005-
01840 in Executive Session on 13 Oct 05, under the  provisions  of  AFI  36-
2603:

      Mr. Thomas S. Markiewicz, Chair
      Ms. Jan Mulligan, Member
      Ms. Dorothy P. Loeb, Member

The following documentary evidence was considered:

            Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 29 May 05, w/atchs.
            Exhibit B.  Available Military Personnel Records.
            Exhibit C.   Letter,  HQ  USAFE/A3,  dated  8  Jul  05,
w/atchs.
            Exhibit D.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 15 Jul 05.
            Exhibit E.  Letter, SAF/MRBC, dated 17 Aug 05.
            Exhibit F.  Letter, Counsel, dated 22 Aug 05.




                                   THOMAS S. MARKIEWICZ
                                   Chair