RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS
IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2006-00447
INDEX CODE: 131.00
COUNSEL: None
HEARING DESIRED: Yes
MANDATORY CASE COMPLETION:
_________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:
His Air Force (AF) Form 475, Education/Training Report for the period
8 July 1994 through 15 December 1994, Section III, Other Comments
(Optional) be amended to read ”Due to factors over which the officer
had no control.”
_________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:
His getting air sick and falling behind due to his father’s death were
beyond his control.
Applicant's complete submission, with attachment, is attached at
Exhibit A.
_________________________________________________________________
STATEMENT OF FACTS:
Applicant is currently serving on active duty in the grade of major.
On 1 December 1994, the applicant’s commander recommended him for
elimination from Undergraduate Pilot Training (UPT).
On 8 December 1994, the reviewing authority found the applicant’s
deficiencies were sufficient for elimination from UPT. The reviewing
authority further recommended the applicant be disenrolled from
training, not be considered for reinstatement in the course at a later
date, be considered for technical training, consideration for non-
rated operations training and consideration for specialized
undergraduate navigator training.
The applicant was eliminated from Undergraduate Pilot Training for
flying deficiencies on 16 December 1994.
Applicant’s OPR profile is listed below.
PERIOD ENDING OVERALL EVALUATION
7 Jul 94 MEETS STANDARDS
15 Dec 94 AF FM 475 ED/TNG RPT
20 May 96 AF FM 475 ED/TNG RPT
24 Feb 97 AF FM 475 ED/TNG RPT
24 Feb 98 MEETS STANDARDS
24 Feb 99 MEETS STANDARDS
23 Apr 99 AF FM 475 ED/TNG RPT
24 Feb 00 MEETS STANDARDS
19 Mar 01 MEETS STANDARDS
15 Dec 01 AF FM 475 ED/TNG RPT
30 Sep 02 MEETS STANDARDS
30 Sep 03 MEETS STANADARDS
30 Sep 04 MEETS STANDARDS
30 Jun 05 MEETS STANDARDS
_________________________________________________________________
AIR FORCE EVALUATION:
HQ AFPC/DPPPEP recommends the applicant’s request be denied. DPPPEP
states the applicant has not provided any support from the evaluator
recommending changes be made to the contested report. Only the
evaluator can determine if the applicant was able to control the
outcome of his elimination. The Record of Commander’s Review Action
states the reason for the applicant’s elimination was flying
deficiencies. If the reason for his elimination had been due to his
father’s passing away, the more appropriate reason would have been due
to “humanitarian reasons” if the evaluator deemed it necessary. Also,
if the reason was due to air sickness, the reason for elimination
would have been “fear of flying” or “physical reasons.” AFI 36-2406,
table 6.1, note 6 provides the list of appropriate reasons for
elimination. However, based on the rater’s assessment, the applicant
had a flying deficiency and was not able to complete the course or
return to the course at a later time. In addition, to these problems,
the training report specifically states the applicant
“professionalism” was only in the 25th percentile, his “military
bearing” was in the 65th percentile, and his “maturity” was in the
45th percentile. It appears these traits played in part as to why the
servicemember was eliminated from the training course. They further
state the Air Force requires more from their officers when dealing
with professionalism, military bearing and maturity. Therefore, an
evaluation report is considered accurate when rendered. Moreover,
substantial evidence is required to challenge a report.
A copy of the Air Force evaluation is attached at Exhibit C.
_________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:
The applicant reviewed the Air Force evaluation and states during the
process of leaving UPT and going in to Undergraduate Navigator
Training (UNT), he was concerned that if he made any complaints it
would prevent him from going to UNT or staying in the Air Force.
His current supervisor after reviewing his records and questioned the
remark on the training report advised him to seek a records
correction.
The applicant further states his performance before and after UPT
proves he is a dedicated professional officer with a sustained record
of performance.
He further states upon returning from his emergency leave he was not
offered any counseling, additional training or placement in a later
class in order to be on a level playing field. He was placed right
back in with his original class. He believes he was not in a position
to ask for this and his leadership chain should have made these
decisions for him (Exhibit E).
_________________________________________________________________
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 an injustice. After a thorough review of
the evidence of record and applicant’s submission, we are not
persuaded that Section III of the contested training report should be
changed. Applicant’s contentions are duly noted; however, we do not
find these uncorroborated assertions, in and by themselves,
sufficiently persuasive to override the rationale provided by the Air
Force. The applicant has not provided any supporting documentation
from his evaluators recommending changing the training report.
Therefore, absent persuasive evidence to the contrary, we find no
compelling basis upon which to recommend granting the relief sought.
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-
2006-00447 in Executive Session on 4 May 2006, under the provisions of
AFI 36-2603:
Mr. Wayne R. Gracie, Panel Chair
Mr. Alan A. Blomgren, Member
Ms. B. J. White-Olson, Member
The following documentary evidence was considered:
Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 6 Feb 06, w/atch.
Exhibit B. Officer Selection Brief.
Exhibit C. Letter, HQ AFPC/DPPPEP, dated 15 Mar 06.
Exhibit D. Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 24 Mar 06.
Exhibit E. Letter, Applicant’s Response, dated 21 Apr 06.
WAYNE R. GRACIE
Panel Chair
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-2004-00710
Applicant was considered and selected for promotion to the grade of major on 1 September 2002 by the CY01A CSB. Although the report should have been filed in the applicant’s Officer Selection Record (OSR), they do not believe the missing report revealed significant accomplishments that would have influenced the board members’ decision, especially since he was selected for promotion to major without the report. DPPPO further states that upon reviewing the applicant’s OSR, the report is...
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 | CY2003 | BC-2002-01818
He received one AF Form 475 dated 14 June 2001 to document his elimination from Specialized Undergraduate Pilot Training (SUPT) due to flying deficiencies. The environment presented at Vance AFB, was in direct violation of the Department of Defense, the Uniform Code of Military Justice, the United States Air Force, Air Education and Training Command, the 71st Flying Training Wing, and the 25th Flying Training Squadron regulations policies, and guidelines concerning sexual harassment,...
AF | BCMR | CY2006 | BC-2006-00556
Reason for his elimination from training shown on the AF Form 475, and AETC Forms 126A, and 240-5 Summary of Record of Training is Drop-on- Request (DOR). AETC/A3F complete evaluation, with attachments, is at Exhibit C. AFPC/DPPPEP recommends approval to correct the 12 December 2002 training report if the AETC Form 126A and AETC 240-5 forms are corrected as recommended by AETC/A3F. NOVEL Panel Chair AFBCMR BC-2006-00556 MEMORANDUM FOR THE CHIEF OF STAFF Having received and considered the...
AF | BCMR | CY1999 | BC-1997-03781
The do not recommend the applicant’s elimination from SUNT be removed from his record. However, this information should have been reflected in a TR prepared by the training squadron at Randolph AFB, not in the TR from CNATRA. A complete copy of the evaluation is attached at Exhibit G. _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF ADDITIONAL AIR FORCE EVALUATIONS: The applicant reviewed the Air Force evaluations and states that based upon the...
The do not recommend the applicant’s elimination from SUNT be removed from his record. However, this information should have been reflected in a TR prepared by the training squadron at Randolph AFB, not in the TR from CNATRA. A complete copy of the evaluation is attached at Exhibit G. _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF ADDITIONAL AIR FORCE EVALUATIONS: The applicant reviewed the Air Force evaluations and states that based upon the...
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 | CY2003 | BC-2003-00293
_________________________________________________________________ AIR FORCE EVALUATION: AETC/SGPS states that PPQ and PNQ are special selection boards held by HQ ROTC/RR to select those that by their ROTC entry physicals, could potentially be qualified for UPT or UNT. A complete copy of the evaluation is attached at Exhibit C. AFPC/DPAO states that based on the procedures in place at the time Det 880 forwarded the eligible pilot candidates to HQ ROTC, then, applicant did not meet the pilot...
_________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: The applicant indicated that the first and only notification he received regarding adding UPT gate months was AFPC’s Jul 95 letter. As a result of the policy change, the applicant had his records adjusted and fell one month short of his third gate under the ACIA of 1974. Prior to the policy change, the applicant fell 11 months short of his third gate credit.