RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS
IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2005-02037
INDEX CODE: 126.03
XXXXXXXXXXXX COUNSEL: NONE
XXXXXXXXXXXX HEARING DESIRED: YES
MANDATORY CASE COMPLETION DATE: 27 DEC 2006
_________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:
He be reinstated into Specialized Undergraduate Pilot Training (SUPT)
or he be deemed eligible to compete in the next selection board for
SUPT.
_________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:
1. His success in civilian flying activities after elimination from
training should make him eligible to renter or reapply for SUPT.
2. He believes Air Force Instruction 36-2205 states he may be
eligible for reinstatement/reapplication if specifically recommended
by an approving official.
3. The recommendation for elimination did not take into
consideration any future experience or the ability to improve his
deficiencies.
In support of his request, applicant provided a personal statement, a
copy of his Aviation Profile, four Letters of Recommendation, and
copies of AF Form 707B, Company Grade Officer Performance Report.
Applicant’s complete submission, with attachments, is at Exhibit A.
_________________________________________________________________
STATEMENT OF FACTS:
The applicant was commissioned a second lieutenant in the Regular Air
Force on 30 May 2001 and was progressively promoted to the grade of
captain. On 22 May 2002, he entered SUPT at Columbus AFB, MS.
The applicant had difficulties attaining standards and was eliminated
from SUPT on 5 November 2002.
A Commander’s Review Board recommended he be disenrolled from
training, not be considered for reinstatement at a later date, be
considered for technical training, be considered for non-rated
operations training and be considered for Specialized Undergraduate
Navigator Training (SUNT).
The Group Commander recommended the applicant be eliminated from SUPT
and be assigned to the Space or Engineering career field.
He is currently serving in the Regular Air Force in the grade captain.
_________________________________________________________________
AIR FORCE EVALUATION:
AETC/DOF recommends denial. DOF states the applicant’s flying
training records were destroyed one year after his elimination in
accordance with document disposition guidance and they are unable to
have full access to his grade book. However, DOF was able to
reconstruct a portion of the training record from archived computer
training files. A review of this record reveals he was given more
than ample opportunity to succeed with no less than eight additional
training sorties.
According to DOF, military flight training is a demanding program,
SUPT is a yearlong experience, demanding students learn at an
accelerated pace. Student schedules are based on a twelve-hour
workday for the entire year of training. Academics-simulators-
training flights-every event meticulously scheduled, tracked, grades
recorded and training documented. Students must study to prepare for
each event whether in the classroom, simulator or aircraft. It is a
dynamic environment requiring self-discipline and the ability to learn
at an accelerated pace. This requires an individual’s full focus to
attain necessary foundation flight sills and prepare for the rigors of
more complex follow-on training.
DOF states civilian flying is conducted at a comfortable, stress-free
pace based on an individual’s ability to pay for flight lessons. And
while civilian flying may serve as a building block to flying military
aircraft, there is little direct correlation between flight training
programs when compared on flying skills taught, discipline and
intensity-military flight training is not stress-free.
According to DOF skill-sets taught in SUPT are military-unique
requirements. Precise aerobatics, formation flying and low-level
navigation are examples of skills demanded in SUPT, which are not
normally taught or practiced in civil aviation. Those individuals,
who might succeed in one environment, have no guarantee of success in
the other.
DOF states every student who has been eliminated for any variety of
reasons, wishes he or she had a second chance to attend USAF pilot
training. However, repeated attempts to retrain individuals
eliminated for cause, represents wasteful use of taxpayer dollars and
limited USAF resources. The applicant’s subsequent success as a civil
pilot is to his credit, but this does not represent justification for
reinstatement into pilot training.
The AETC/DOF evaluation, with attachments, is at Exhibit D.
_________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:
A copy of the Air Force evaluation was forwarded to applicant on 22
Jul 2005 for review and response. As of this date, no response has
been received by this office (Exhibit D).
_________________________________________________________________
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 an error or injustice to warrant granting the relief
sought in this application. The evidence of record shows the
applicant had difficulties attaining standards during T-37 pre-solo
training for area maneuvers, traffic pattern/landings, decision-
making, situational awareness, and task management. The applicant was
given ample opportunity to meet the standards of the specialized
undergraduate pilot training. However, after over 51 hours of flight
time, he was eliminated for flying deficiencies. Therefore, we
agree with the opinions and recommendations of the Chief, Aircrew
Training and Standardization Division and adopt his rationale as the
basis for our conclusion the applicant has not been the victim of an
error or injustice, and 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 issue(s) 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-
2005-02037 in Executive Session on 15 September 2005, under the
provisions of AFI 36-2603:
Mr. Thomas S. Markiewicz, Chair
Mr. Gregory A. Parker, Member
Ms. Jan Mulligan, Member
The following documentary evidence was considered:
Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 10 Jun 05, w/atchs.
Exhibit B. Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
Exhibit C. Letter, HQ AETC/DOF, dated 15 Jul 05, w/atchs.
Exhibit D. Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 22 Jul 05.
THOMAS S. MARKIEWICZ
Chair
AF | BCMR | CY2004 | BC-2003-03204
His completion of both the Aerobatic Course and Emergency Confidence Course should further demonstrate his resolve. It would be expected that students initially occupying off-base housing would need to move one time if they accept an offer for on-base quarters at some later date. The FY04 classes to date, with Dex-scope use allowed, the success rate is 88%.
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...
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 | CY2005 | BC-2005-02063
After only three training sorties, rather than tell his flight commander the complete situation, he simply told him he could not go fly, resulting in referral to the commander's review process. _________________________________________________________________ AIR FORCE EVALUATION: HQ AETC/DOF recommended denial. In any case, the elimination letter provided by AFPC shows MOA as the elimination reason.
AF | BCMR | CY2003 | BC-2002-01823
DPFP’s evaluation, along with attached correspondence from the -- ANG Chief of Staff and an e-mail trail between DPFP and the ANG Advisor to the Commander for 19th Air Force, is at Exhibit B. HQ AETC/DOF recommends the applicant not be reinstated into SUPT. DOF’s complete evaluation, with attachments, is at Exhibit C. _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: Applicant notes that the National Guard Bureau (NGB) has...
AF | BCMR | CY2003 | BC-2002-00844
In addition, her flight commander broke his contract with her not to fly on weekends and to not schedule her to fly on the same day as a major academic test. He told her that the standard was to recommend students for elimination with three academic failures while at the same time he recommended another individual for reinstatement. _________________________________________________________________ THE BOARD DETERMINES THAT: The applicant be notified that the evidence presented did not...
AF | BCMR | CY2004 | BC-2002-03006
He was denied additional training flights after breaks in training to which he was entitled and which other students received. However, AETCI 36-2205 requires undergraduate flying training squadrons to inform the ANG anytime Guard students require a progress check, an elimination check, a commander's review, or when there is a reasonable doubt about the student's potential to complete training. The DOF evaluation is at Exhibit...
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 | CY2004 | BC-2004-01805
_________________________________________________________________ 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. The complete evaluation is at Exhibit C. AETC/DOF recommends that the applicant not be reinstated...
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...