RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS
IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2006-00833
INDEX CODE: 100.00
COUNSEL: NONE
HEARING DESIRED: NO
MANDATORY CASE COMPLETION DATE: 21 SEP 2007
________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:
He be reinstated into undergraduate navigator training (UNT).
________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:
He understood that Specialized Undergraduate Pilot Training (SUPT) was not
in his best interested and withdrew from the program on his own accord. He
was young and lacked the maturity and foresight to recognize the impact on
his SUPT elimination towards other Air Force Specialty Codes (AFSCs). His
decision to self eliminate from SUPT should not preclude any consideration
of other rated positions. He is qualified for rated training and knows the
Air Force can best utilize his skills as a navigator or in Air Battle
Management (ABM).
In support of the appeal, applicant submits extracts from his SIE SUPT
package and a supporting statement from his squadron commander.
Applicant’s complete submission, with attachments, is at Exhibit A.
________________________________________________________________
STATEMENT OF FACTS:
The applicant is currently serving on active duty in the grade of first
lieutenant (O-2). On 19 March 2003, applicant entered SUPT, class 04-07/E.
On 2 June 2003, he self-initiated a drop-on-request (DOR) to be eliminated
from SUPT due to his strong desire to pursue a career in logistics,
specifically in logistics readiness. He was withdrawn from training and
entered into the Commander’s Review (CR) process. His elimination was
approved by the wing commander on 10 June 2003.
________________________________________________________________
AIR FORCE EVALUATION:
AETC/A3F recommends the application be denied, and states, in part that a
student eliminated for self-initiated reasons, before, during or after
course completion are ineligible for further flight training. Further,
during the CR process, students are briefed on the review process,
potential outcomes, and eligibility for further flight training. There is
no evidence of error or injustice to warrant an exception to policy.
The AETC/A3F evaluation, with attachments, is at Exhibit B.
________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:
A complete copy of the evaluation was forwarded to the applicant on 28
April 2006, for review and comment, within 30 days. However, as of this
date, no response has been received by this office.
________________________________________________________________
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. The Board notes that the evidence of
record shows that the applicant elected to disenroll from the Undergraduate
Pilot Training. The Board further notes that the governing directive in
effect at the time of his voluntary disenrollment clearly states,
individuals eliminated for self-initiated reasons, before during or after
course completion are ineligible for further flight training. The Board
believes the applicant was provided every opportunity in which he was
entitled and due to his voluntary disenrollment from Undergraduate
Navigator Training is disqualified for future Undergraduate Navigator
Training. We took notice of the applicant's complete submission in judging
the merits of the case; however, we agree with the opinions and
recommendations of the Air Force office of primary responsibility and adopt
it’s rationale as the basis for our conclusion that the applicant has not
been the victim of an error or injustice. Therefore, in the absence of
evidence to the contrary, we find no compelling basis to recommend granting
the relief sought in this application.
________________________________________________________________
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 Docket Number BC-2006-00833
in Executive Session on 17 May 2006, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603:
Mr. Michael J. Maglio, Panel Chair
Mr. Grover L. Dunn, Member
Ms. Debra Walker, Member
The following documentary evidence was considered:
Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 14 Mar 06, w/atchs.
Exhibit B. Letter, AETC/A3F, dated 21 Apr 06, w/atchs.
Exhibit C. Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 28 Apr 06.
MICHAEL J. MAGLIO
Panel Chair
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 | CY2006 | BC-2006-03844
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2006-03844 INDEX CODE: 100.07 XXXXXXX COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: YES MANDATORY CASE COMPLETION DATE: 18 JUNE 2008 _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: He was wrongfully eliminated from Specialized Undergraduate Pilot Training (SUPT) and request he be reinstated in SUPT. ...
AF | BCMR | CY2011 | BC-2011-02211
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2011-02211 COUNSEL: NO HEARING DESIRED: YES _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: His Air Education and Training Command (AETC) Form 126A, Record of Commanders Review Action, be amended to include the remarks of the Eliminating Authority recommending him for consideration for reinstatement into Undergraduate Pilot Training (UPT) at...
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 | 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...
On 5 Jun 00, the 33rd Flying Training Squadron commander recommended the applicant be disenrolled from SUPT, not be considered for reinstatement at a later date, and not be considered for undergraduate navigator training. The instructor did not indicate this was mandated by Air Force instruction, which at the time of the incident he had not completely read. _________________________________________________________________ THE BOARD DETERMINES THAT: The applicant be notified that the...
AF | BCMR | CY2007 | bc-2006-03308
________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: He was disadvantaged as a Naval officer entering an Air Force (AF) program because he had not completed the same pre-Joint Specialized Undergraduate Pilot Training (JSUPT) his AF classmates had attended. They further recommend that if the requested relief is granted, his AETC Form 126A, Record of Commander’s Review Action, be changed to read “student should be considered for reinstatement in...
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 | CY2014 | BC 2014 00309
However, it is noted the contested report has been a matter of record for four years. The assignments for pilot training graduates are based on the needs of the Air Force, assignment availability and student desires. As for his request for removal of the contested Training Report, we note the contested report has been replaced with a Letter of Evaluation by direction of the Air Force Chief of Staff.
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...