RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS
IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2005-01178
INDEX CODE: 115.00
COUNSEL: NONE
HEARING DESIRED: YES
MANDATORY CASE COMPLETION DATE: 9 Oct 06
_________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:
His elimination from Joint Specialized Undergraduate Navigator Training
(JSUNT) be removed from his records so that he may compete for JSUNT and
Joint Specialized Undergraduate Pilot Training (JSUPT) training
opportunities.
_________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:
His elimination was inconsistent with the requirements of AETCI 36-2205.
Upon entering the Commander's Assessment Program (CAP) no additional
training (AT) program was tailored to his needs until prior to his
elimination check. He did not receive AT until after his first failure.
During his Progress Check (PC) failure he did not receive an opportunity to
Repeat Subtask the approach. There is evidence of inconsistencies in the
Commander's Review (CR) process. He is aware of others who were reinstated
following failure of an Elimination Check (EC) and completion of the CR
process. These individuals encountered reviews similar to his wherein
leadership believed they could complete the training in spite of an EC
failure. AETCI 36-2205 only permits one wash-back per student. Several
students in classes ahead of him were given a second opportunity to wash-
back prior to and after an elimination check ride. The squadron leadership
strongly believed his deficiencies were correctable with more training, the
commander did not agree. He was washed-back for two weeks while others
were tasked to reaccomplish the entire Fundamentals of Navigation.
In support of his request applicant provided a copy of his AF Form 475,
Education/Training Report. His complete submission, with attachment, is at
Exhibit A.
_________________________________________________________________
STATEMENT OF FACTS:
Applicant was appointed a second lieutenant, Reserve of the Air Force on 29
May 02 and was voluntarily ordered to extended active duty on 16 Jun 02.
He entered JSUNT in October 2002 with Class 0313. He failed a simulator
Fundamentals of Navigation Checkride on 29 Jan 03. He failed the Checkride
for Departure, Cruise Navigation, and Approach subtasks. He subsequently
failed the recheck for Approach and Situation Awareness. AT was
administered in the form of a simulator event on 3 February and 5 February.
A second reevaluation was conducted on 7 Feb 03. He was given an
unsatisfactory overall grade for failing to meet standards on Cruise
Navigation, Approach, and Situation Awareness. He entered into the
Commander's Review process and was eliminated in February 2003. He is
currently serving on active duty in the grade of first lieutenant.
_________________________________________________________________
AIR FORCE EVALUATION:
AETC/DOF recommends denial. DOF states applicant's grade book was
destroyed in accordance with document disposition instructions. Without
the actual grade books DOF must make assumptions as to the normal training
administration processes. He should have been given remedial academic
ground training after his failure of T2790. This remedial training should
have been conducted before his PC. After the PC failure, he was given two
additional training simulators, which reprised full mission profiles to
include remedial training on items graded below standards. He infers an
extensive additional AT program should have been developed to meet his
training deficiencies. Given his normal progress until the succession of
failed checkrides, he received appropriate additional training which met
command and unit standards.
The Repeat Subtask (RST) option is at the judgment of the check instructor
and is used in those few situations where the first attempt does not
provide an accurate assessment of student performance. In this case, he
failed the initial check ride attempt for Departure, Cruise Navigation, and
Approach. During the succeeding PC the Approach subarea could not be
repeated because it had been previously graded.
He has provided no additional or supporting documentation regarding his
contention of inconsistencies; therefore, DOF cannot provide any comments
on his allegations.
The DOF evaluation is at Exhibit C.
_________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:
A copy of the Air Force evaluation was forwarded to the applicant on 27 May
05 for review and comment within 30 days. As of this date, this office has
received no response.
_________________________________________________________________
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; however, we are not
persuaded by the evidence submitted that the appropriate procedures or
standards were not applied, or that he was denied rights and privileges he
was entitled to. The applicant's contentions are duly noted; however, in
our opinion it appears he was afforded every reasonable opportunity for
successful completion of JSUNT which met command and unit standards.
Therefore, 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 the absence of 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 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-
01178 in Executive Session on 29 Jun 05, under the provisions of AFI 36-
2603:
Mr. Gregory H. Petkoff, Panel Chair
Ms. Jan Mulligan, Member
Ms. Patricia A. Robey, Member
The following documentary evidence was considered:
Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 4 Apr 04, w/atch.
Exhibit B. Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
Exhibit C. Letter, AETC/DOF, dated 16 May 05, w/atchs.
Exhibit D. Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 27 May 05.
GREGORY H. PETKOFF
Panel Chair
AF | BCMR | CY2005 | BC-2004-03546
The applicant’s complete submission, with attachments, is at Exhibit A. However, if the decision is to grant the requested relief, applicant’s elimination record from JSUNT must be expunged to allow him to compete for CSO training. As of this date, no response has been received by this office (Exhibit C).
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-2005-02037
According to DOF skill-sets taught in SUPT are military-unique requirements. 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. _________________________________________________________________ THE BOARD DETERMINES THAT: The applicant be notified that the evidence...
AF | BCMR | CY2005 | BC-2004-03434
Applicant’s complete submission, with attachments, is at Exhibit A. 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. Applicant’s complete...
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 | 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 | 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 | CY2004 | BC-2003-02805
DOF’s complete evaluation, with attachments, is at Exhibit D. _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: Copies of the Air Force evaluations were forwarded to the applicant on 23 April 2004 for review and comment within 30 days. _________________________________________________________________ THE BOARD DETERMINES THAT: The applicant be notified that the evidence presented did not demonstrate the existence of material error...
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.