Search Decisions

Decision Text

AF | BCMR | CY2007 | BC-2007-01874
Original file (BC-2007-01874.doc) Auto-classification: Denied


                            RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
             AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS


IN THE MATTER OF:      DOCKET NUMBER:  BC-2007-01874
            INDEX CODE:  115.00

            COUNSEL:  NONE

            HEARING DESIRED:  YES

MANDATORY CASE COMPLETION DATE:  15 DEC 08

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

He receive reinstatement  into  Specialized  Undergraduate  Flying  Training
(SUPT), an age waiver, or as an alternative, entry into Undergraduate  Pilot
Training (UPT).

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

A failed elimination check-ride was the result of issues beyond his  control
leading to his elimination from SUPT.  Applicant also blames  academic  exam
failures on unfair tests and changes in testing media (computer-aided  exams
vice  hand-written  exams)  as  contributing  factors  to  his   poor   SUPT
performance.

He states he has made sacrifices that very few others have made.   With  his
passion of still wanting to fly, he has found that he is too  old  to  apply
for the Navy and Marines.  Private aviation is  his  only  option,  however,
with school loans, he is unable to afford to do so and still be able to  pay
off loans.  He further states he is willing to go to whatever lengths to  be
allowed back into UPT.

In support of his request, the applicant provided a personal  statement  and
documentation extracted from his military personnel record.

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

_________________________________________________________________





STATEMENT OF FACTS:

The applicant is currently serving on extended active duty in the  grade  of
first lieutenant effective and with a date of rank of 1 June 2007.

Applicant entered SUPT with Class 07-11 at Vance AFB,  OK  on  14 June  2006
and was eliminated from training for flying deficiency in October 2006.

The remaining relevant facts pertaining to this application, extracted  from
the applicant's military records, are contained in the  letter  prepared  by
the appropriate office of the Air Force (Exhibit C).

_________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

AETC/A3F  recommends  denial.   AETC/A3F  states  the  applicant   tells   a
compelling story from his perspective.  While ambition  is  admirable,  this
alone cannot sustain an individual in a program  where  standards  are  high
and consistent performance is required.   Primary  training  is  a  dynamic,
fast-paced training program.  Many students who do not  meet  standards  and
lack potential are eliminated.  The training  was  IAW  established  command
policies and syllabus guidance.  Based on AETC/A3F’s examination,  there  is
no evidence of error or injustice substantiating reinstatement.

The AETC/A3F complete evaluation, with attachments, is at Exhibit C.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

On 27 July 2007, the evaluation was forwarded to the  applicant  for  review
and comment within 30 days (Exhibit D).  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 an  error  or  injustice.   After  a  thorough  review  of  the
evidence of record and the applicant’s submission, we  are  of  the  opinion
that relief is  not  warranted  and  the  applicant  has  not  provided  any
evidence which would lead us to  believe  otherwise.   His  contentions  are
duly noted; however,  the  detailed  comments  provided  by  the  office  of
primary  responsibility  (OPR)   adequately   address   these   allegations.
Therefore, we are in agreement with the comments and recommendation  of  the
OPR and adopt  its  rationale  as  the  basis  for  our  decision  that  the
applicant has not been the victim of either an error or injustice.  In  view
of the above and in the absence of evidence to  the  contrary,  we  find  no
compelling basis 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 issues  involved.   Therefore,  the  request
for a hearing is not favorably considered.

_________________________________________________________________

THE BOARD DETERMINES THAT:

The applicant be notified the evidence presented  did  not  demonstrate  the
existence of an error or injustice; the application  was  denied  without  a
personal appearance; and 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-2007-
01874 in Executive Session on 28 Aug 07, under the  provisions  of  AFI  36-
2603:

                 Mr. James W. Russell III, Panel Chair
                 Mr. Elwood C. Lewis III, Member
                 Mr. Mark J. Novitski, Member

The following documentary evidence was considered:

   Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 5 Jun 07, w/atchs.
   Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
   Exhibit C.  Letter, AETC/A3F, dated 23 Jul 07, w/atchs.
   Exhibit D.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 27 Jul 07.





                       JAMES W. RUSSELL III
                       Panel Chair

Similar Decisions

  • AF | BCMR | CY2011 | BC-2011-02211

    Original file (BC-2011-02211.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    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 Commander’s 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 | CY2009 | BC 2009 00424

    Original file (BC 2009 00424.txt) Auto-classification: Approved

    Had he been allowed to attend IFS he would have had a better understanding of what it would take to be successful in SUPT. _________________________________________________________________ AIR FORCE EVALUATION: AETC/A3F recommends correcting the applicant’s AETC Form 126A Section I, Initiating Authority block, to read ”Flying Deficiencies – C4389 – pre-Mid-Phase failure to progress” rather than “Pre-Solo Elimination Check.” A3F states that if the applicant took time to read the orders, he...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2004 | BC-2003-03830

    Original file (BC-2003-03830.DOC) Auto-classification: Approved

    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 | CY2005 | BC-2005-02063

    Original file (BC-2005-02063.doc) Auto-classification: Denied

    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 | CY2006 | BC-2006-03844

    Original file (BC-2006-03844.DOC) Auto-classification: Denied

    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 | CY2002 | BC-2002-00937

    Original file (BC-2002-00937.doc) Auto-classification: Approved

    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 | CY2011 | BC-2011-00606

    Original file (BC-2011-00606.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    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 | CY2006 | BC-2006-00556

    Original file (BC-2006-00556.DOC) Auto-classification: Approved

    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-2006-00833

    Original file (BC-2006-00833.DOC) Auto-classification: Denied

    He was withdrawn from training and entered into the Commander’s Review (CR) process. ________________________________________________________________ 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. We took notice of the applicant's complete submission in judging the merits of the case; however, we agree with the...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2007 | BC-2007-00099

    Original file (BC-2007-00099.DOC) Auto-classification: Denied

    When applying for the AFROTC Potential Pilot Qualified (PPQ)/Potential Navigator Qualified (PNQ) Categorization Board, HQ AETC received the wrong paperwork (Flying Class I (FCI)/Commissioning Physical instead of the Department of Defense Medical Examination Review Board (DoDMERB) physical) from AFROTC, which may have contributed to his nonselection for pilot training. If provided the chance to compete against his peers during the FY 06 primary selection board, he would have been selected...