RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
         AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF:      DOCKET NUMBER:  BC-2005-02208
            INDEX CODE:

            COUNSEL:  OMAR VINCENT MELEHY

            HEARING DESIRED: YES

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

All documents relating to her removal from  Fixed  Wing  Qualification
(FWQ) and Specialized Undergraduate Pilot Training (SUPT) be  expunged
from her record; that she be awarded both rotary and fixed wing  pilot
aeronautical ratings based on past and current qualifications; she  be
returned to an  Active/Guard  Reserve  (AGR)  position;  that  she  be
awarded active duty time flight pay for the period from elimination to
now; that she be retroactively promoted with back pay; and that she be
granted attorney’s fees and costs.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

The Air Force committed a major procedural error  by  eliminating  her
from fixed wing  training  for  failure  to  meet  training  standards
without first referring the matter to a Flight Evaluation Board  (FEB)
for a full examination of her flight potential and  recommendation  as
to whether to continue flight training.  She already had a “rating” as
a pilot with both rotary wing and fixed wing certifications.  The  Air
Force could not lawfully eliminate  her  from  fixed  wing  conversion
training without first referring the matter  to  an  FEB  for  a  full
evaluation of her  flight  potential  and  recommendation  whether  to
continue her in conversion training.  Counsel for applicant cites  Air
Force Regulation (AFR) 60-13  wherein  it  states:  “Failure  to  Meet
Training Standards.  Failure to meet academic or flying standard while
enrolled in the United States Air Force (USAF) flying training  course
required  for  upgrading  or  conversion  training  requires  a   full
examination of  the  officer’s  potential  continued  aviation  career
status.  Rated officers will not be removed or disenrolled  from  USAF
flying training course unless approved by HQ  USAF/XOOTD.   The  usual
method of disenrollment from training is FEB under this paragraph.   A
FEB  evaluates  retention  in   (or   removal   from)   training   and
qualification for continued aviation service”.  Counsel notes even  if
an FEB had conducted a full examination  of  her  potential  continued
aviation career  status  that  does  not  itself  guarantee  that  her
disqualification from training was proper.  In  a  case  involving  an
African-American pilot, based on flying deficiencies,  the  Air  Force
disenrolled him from the Fixed  Wing  Qualification  Training  Program
(FWQTP) and  revoked  his  aeronautical  rating.   The  Board  ordered
expungement of all records showing he had been disenrolled from FWQTP,
and permitting the pilot to reenter FWQTP and obtain  his  fixed  wing
certification (see AFBCMR Docket Number 99-00584 attached  as  exhibit
16).  In her case, the  matter  was  never  referred  to  an  FEB  for
findings and recommendations on her  flight  potential.   An  FEB  was
never convened and therefore never made any determination  on  whether
she had the potential to successfully complete FWQTP.  Therefore,  the
decision to disenroll her from FWQTP and to  revoke  her  aeronautical
rating was unlawful and  invalid.   All  records  indicating  she  was
disenrolled from FWQTP and that her aeronautical  rating  was  revoked
should be expunged.

She is one of a small number of black female pilots in what is clearly
a white male dominated environment.  She has provided  proof  she  was
treated in a discriminatory fashion at both  Vance  and  Reese  AFB’s.
This highly irregular treatment indicates she was not  treated  fairly
or appropriately.  She gave up a promising career in the Army only  to
be  ridiculed  and  degraded  in  the  Air   Force,   discriminatorily
disenrolled from fixed wing training and stripped of her  aeronautical
rating.

In support of her appeal, the counsel for  applicant  has  provided  a
brief in support of petition for record correction and 16 attachments.

Applicant’s complete submission, with attachments, is at Exhibit A.

_________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

In 1992, she resigned her Regular commission with the Army and  joined
the ANG in order to fly fixed wing aircraft;  specifically  the  C-21.
At the time, she was an Army helicopter pilot  with  some  fixed  wing
experience.   The  ANG  conducted  an  Aeronautical  Rating  Board  to
determine whether or not the applicant was  qualified  for  equivalent
Air Force ratings.  She was awarded an AF  pilot  rating  (restricted-
helicopter only).  In July 1992, she entered  FWQ  training  at  Vance
AFB, Oklahoma.  She completed 37 phase with 72.3  training  hours  and
was progressed to the T-38 advanced training phase.   In  April  1993,
after 102.7 hours in the T-38, she failed a final  navigation  process
and  was  recommended  for  elimination  in  accordance  with  command
directives.  While an FEB would normally be convened in this  instance
(and one was considered), in October 1993, the ANG and  AETC  decided,
instead, to enter her in the T-1A track of SUPT at Reese  AFB,  Texas.
She was placed in the advanced  T-1A  course  because  a  formal  T-1A
course had not yet been developed.  On 22 April 2004, and  after  85.3
hours in the  T-1A,  she  was  eliminated  from  training  for  flying
deficiencies.  Her Aeronautical Order was subsequently terminated.

On 26 April 2004, she  filed  an  Equal  Opportunity  Treatment  (EOT)
complaint alleging  harassment  and  disparate  treatment  encountered
during her training as Vance and Reese AFB’s.   An  investigation  was
conducted  during  May  through  July  1995  with   no   findings   of
significance.
_________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATIONS:

HQ USAF/XOOT contends the applicant received adequate training in  all
phases of instruction in the T-37, T-38, and the T-1A.   She  received
extra training above and beyond what was  required  by  the  syllabus.
She failed three of six  academic  tests  during  the  T-1A  phase  of
academics.  She was allowed to wash back  during  the  T-1A  phase  of
training to allow for more academic instruction.  Review  of  training
record comments includes a lack of situational awareness,  ability  to
handle more than one  task  at  a  time,  inadequate  progress  for  a
previously qualified pilot.

In accordance with AFR 60-13, Aviation Service, Aeronautical  Ratings,
and Badges, dated 18 May 1987 she was awarded the USAF Helicopter Only
Pilot  Rating  contingent  upon  completion  of  FWQ.   Award  of   an
unrestricted Pilot  rating  required  her  to  complete  USAF  UPT  or
equivalent training.  Determination of equivalent training  was  based
on the AF training standard and includes an  analysis  of  the  course
curriculum, aircraft flown, and experience.  The Army Fixed Wing Multi
Engine Qualification course did not meet USAF MPT training  standards,
and to this day is not considered equivalent  training  for  award  of
USAF Pilot ratings.  She failed to complete FWQ course after receiving
numerous additional training sorties and one instruction, resulting in
revocation of her Pilot rating due to  her  failure  to  complete  the
requisite training.

XOOT recommends the Board deny her  request  due  to  a  lack  of  any
training deficiencies that my  have  contributed  to  her  failure  to
complete the FWQ course.  Continuity of Instructor Pilots  (IP’s)  and
consistency of training was evident throughout her attendance  in  the
FWQ course.  Continuity  of  IP’s  and  consistency  of  training  was
evident throughout the  applicant’s  attendance  in  the  FWQ  course.
While  there  were  some  inconsistencies  in   the   application   of
regulations concerning the award and revocation  of  her  aeronautical
rating, the training received had  no  bearing  on  her  inability  to
complete the FWQ course and we believe had an FEB  been  convened  the
outcome would have been  the  same.   Documentation  exists  that  the
applicant received more than required academic and flight  instruction
and that  she  failed  to  progress  after  receiving  the  additional
training.  The review  of  other  potential  contributing  factors  is
beyond the expertise of this office.

XOOT’s complete evaluation is at Exhibit C.

HQ AETC/DOF addresses her allegations  of  discrimination,  a  hostile
training  environment,  irregular  application  of  policy,  and  poor
training management as contributors to her  failure.   DOF  notes  her
previous experience as an Army helicopter pilot  with  limited  fixed-
wing aircraft  experience  prior  to  her  Army  resignation  and  her
appointment in the Air National Guard (ANG) in 1992 for the purpose of
flying C-21 fixed wing aircraft.  The ANG  conducted  an  Aeronautical
Rating Board (ARB) to ascertain if she was  qualified  for  equivalent
Air Force ratings.  An ARB is  used  for  inter-service  transfers  to
evaluate an individual’s training and experience  against  established
AF standards.  As a result of an ARB, she  was  awarded  an  AF  pilot
rating (restricted-helicopter  only),  contingent  on  her  successful
completion of FWQ training.  FWQ is a  formal,  graduate-level  course
for rated officers.

DOF recognizes the complexity of this case as the records,  originated
during the 1992-1994 timeframe, have been long destroyed in accordance
with established  document  disposition  instructions.   Further,  DOF
notes their lack of access to individuals, supervisors, and commanders
that were involved in this case.   Consequently,  her  case  has  been
reviewed using assumptions, circumstances,  and  leadership  decisions
made more than a decade ago.  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.  However, DOF cannot suggest conducting an FEB more  than  10
years after the events as it would be impractical given  the  loss  of
original training records and unpredictable availability of  pertinent
witnesses.  Further, placing her in the  T-1A  advanced  track  of  an
undergraduate program after failure  in  FWQ  further  complicated  an
already complex situation.   Unlike  most  individuals,  she  had  two
opportunities to achieve a fixed-wing rating and did not succeed.   If
there is an error in this case, DOF  feels  it  was  the  leadership’s
eagerness to do the right thing and see her succeed in training.

She failed two opportunities  to  complete  fixed  wing  training  and
should have met an FEB.  There is  a  likelihood  an  FEB  would  have
resulted in the loss of the ARB-conferred rating and revocation of her
Aeronautical Rating.  Therefore, we recommend no change to her record.


DOF’s complete evaluation, with attachments, is at Exhibit D.

NGB/A1POF has extensively reviewed the regulations  and  compared  the
process the  applicant  went  through  in  1992  to  how  members  are
processed and training today.  From this review,  A1POF  contends  the
steps afforded her between 1992 and 1993 were beyond  those  required.
Specifically, it is normal procedure to gain an aviator from a  sister
service who flew helicopters and had limited fixed wing experience, to
assign them to a rating of “Pilot, Helicopter Only”.  Once gained, she
would then attend FWQ in preparation for attending SUPT.  Because  she
was already a rated officer while attending FWQ,  and  she  failed  to
meet standards, she should have  met  an  FEB.   It  appears  the  Air
Education and Training Command (AETC)  tried  everything  possible  to
allow her to earn her FWQ.  The biggest step AETC took was to send her
to the T-1 Phase 3 training of SUPT.   Entry  requirements  for  SUPT,
cited by A1POF  from  AETC  Instruction  (AETCI)  36-2205,  require  a
student who does not meet  SUPT  standards  to  undergo  a  Commanders
Review (CR).  In her case, a CR was initiated  and  a  review  of  her
training showed very good continuity  of  training  and  outlined  her
flight deficiencies.  She was eliminated  from  SUPT  through  the  CR
process, which prohibited her from entering any other flying  training
program offered by the Air Force.

After comparing current Instructions with those in effect during 1992,
A1DOF states the only  area  that  would  be  different  now  is  what
happened to her as a result of not meeting standards at  FWQ.   Today,
she would meet an FEB or be offered  a  waiver  to  an  FEB.   Due  to
navigation being one of her weaker areas as noted during  FWQ,  it  is
difficult to state whether or not  she  could  retain  her  Air  Force
rating of “Pilot, Helicopter Only”.  If she did keep  the  rating  and
was hired by a helicopter unit, she would still had to have  passed  a
graduate flying training course (currently offered  at  Kirtland  AFB,
NM) to become fully qualified to fly for either the Air Force  or  the
ANG.  The curriculum of these courses emphasizes navigation, formation
flying, and instruments  with  the  heaviest  emphasis  on  navigation
skills.  These were all areas  she  was  noted  as  having  difficulty
applying herself in.

As she failed to meet standards  in  two  separate  courses  of  basic
flying  training  after  having  received  almost  50%   more   flying
instruction that the average ANG or AF student who are  selected  with
little to no military flying experience, A1POF recommends her requests
for relief be denied and her record not be changed.

A1POF’s complete evaluation is at Exhibit E.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

Applicant’s counsel states the advisory opinion by NGB,  HQ  USAF/XOOT
and HQ AETC/DOF speculate about the results of a Board that was  never
convened. This is highly improper. With no Board  action,  his  client
was not able to move forward or backward in  her  flying  career.  Not
knowing that her aeronautical rating was revoked  made  it  even  more
difficult. Counsel and client disagree  with  AETC/DOF  advisory  that
regulatory  guidance  places  a  time  limit  on  convening  a  Flying
Evaluation Board. The regulatory guidance is not cited and his  client
knows of no such guidance. In addition, DOF’s  recommendation  suggest
that the entire record be removed and that the record be corrected  to
reflect a fact that is  not  true:  that  his  client  had  no  flying
experience and no prior rating.

Counsel’s complete response, with attachment, is at Exhibit G.

_________________________________________________________________

THE BOARD CONCLUDES THAT:

1.  The applicant has exhausted all remedies provided by existing  law
or regulations.

2.  The application was not  timely  filed;  however,  it  is  in  the
interest of justice to excuse the failure to timely file.

3.  Sufficient relevant evidence has been presented to demonstrate the
existence of an error or an injustice.  We took into consideration the
fact the applicant progressed in Fixed  Wing  Qualification  (FWQ)  by
progressing from the T-37 phase to the T-38 phase where she ultimately
failed a navigation progress check and was recommended for elimination
in accordance with (IAW)  command  directives.   At  this  point,  she
should have met a  Flight  Evaluation  Board  (FEB).   An  FEB’s  sole
purpose is to evaluate retention in (or removal from) flight training,
and qualification for continued aviation service.  After being removed
from FWQ the usual method  of  disenrollment  is  FEB  action  or  FRB
waiver.  It appears the Air Education and Training Command (AETC)  and
the Air National Guard (ANG) struggled with the decision  to  initiate
an FEB action.  The applicant had already filed an  Equal  Opportunity
and  Treatment  (EOT)  complaint  alleging  harassment  and  disparate
treatment encountered during her training at Vance and Reese Air Force
Bases (AFB’s).  The resultant investigation conducted from May through
July 1994 presented no findings of significance related to her primary
allegations.  Nevertheless, AETC and the ANG agreed to  avoid  an  FEB
and insert her into training at another base with the  opportunity  to
train in an aircraft very similar to her ANG-assigned  aircraft.   She
was eliminated from this training also for  flying  deficiencies.   In
this case, however, an FEB was not required  as  the  course  she  was
eliminated from was considered an undergraduate course where potential
pilots did not already have their wings.

We find therefore, that in their haste to give her another  chance  at
flying for the ANG, AETC and  the  ANG  did  not  in  fact  adhere  to
established regulations regarding elimination and FEB action and  were
therefore remiss in their actions no matter what the reason.  She  was
eliminated from FWQ twice and should have met an FEB  at  that  point.
The fact she was inserted in an “undergraduate’ training  program  and
again eliminated should not be considered a ‘favor’ as is construed in
the AETC and the XOOT advisories, as it effectively removed  her  from
contention for future flying opportunities  because  elimination  from
undergraduate  training  removes  her  right  to  an  FEB  and  places
responsibility for future training opportunities in the hands  of  her
commander as part of the Commanders Review (CR) process.   While  AETC
and the ANG may have believed they were doing the right thing  by  the
applicant, had they adhered to established regulations and ordered her
to meet an FEB, the outcome for  the  applicant  may  have  been  more
advantageous to her. Therefore, in view of  the  above,  we  recommend
that the records be corrected as indicated below.

____________________________________________________________

THE BOARD RECOMMENDS THAT:

The pertinent military records of the  Department  of  the  Air  Force
relating to APPLICANT be corrected to show that she be  considered  by
an Flying Evaluation  Board  (FEB)  in  accordance  with  AFI  11-402,
AVIATION AND PARACHUTIST SERVICE,  AERONAUTICAL  RATINGS  AND  BADGES,
within 90 days of this directive; and the results of the evaluation be
forwarded to the Air Force Board for Correction of Military Records at
the earliest practicable date so that all  necessary  and  appropriate
actions may be completed.

______________________________________________________________

The following members of the Board considered AFBCMR Docket Number BC-
2005-02208 in Executive Session on 1 August 2006, under the provisions
of AFI 36-2603:

      Mr. John B. Hennessey, Panel Chair
      Mr. Elwood C. Lewis, III, Member
      Ms. Donna D. Jonkoff, Member

All members  voted  to  correct  the  records,  as  recommended.   The
following documentary evidence was considered:

    Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 8 Jul 05, w/atchs.
    Exhibit B.  Applicant’s Supplement, dated 12 Aug 05, w/atchs.
    Exhibit C.  Letter, HQ USAF/XOOT, undated.
    Exhibit D.  Letter, HQ AETC/DOF, dated 12 Sep 05, w/atchs.
    Exhibit E.  Letter, NGB/A1POF, dated, 20 Jun 06.
    Exhibit F.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 30 Jun 06.
    Exhibit G.  Letter, Counsel, dated 28 Jul 06, w/atch.




                                   JOHN B. HENNESSEY
                                   Panel Chair