RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
             AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF:      DOCKET NUMBER:  BC-2007-01981
            INDEX CODE:  115.00
            COUNSEL:  NONE
            HEARING DESIRED:  YES

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

1.  The Flight  Evaluation  Board  (FEB)  decision  be  overturned  and  all
evidence of the FEB be expunged from his records.

2.  His wings be reinstated.

3.  He meet a promotion board and have the opportunity to find an Air  Force
Reserve or Air National Guard position.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

He recently joined the Iowa Army National Guard as  a  prospective  Med-Evac
pilot.  He thought up until a month ago that he would be able to fly in  the
Army because the FEB results  were  specifically  in  regard  to  Air  Force
flying.  He had over 12 years experience flying  in  the  Army  without  any
problems.  His Army unit has been given a deployment date and is  relatively
new to the Med-Evac mission.  He has more time in the UH-60 than 90% of  the
pilots.

The FEB was based on  a  single  failed  instrument  check  ride.   All  the
retraining that was accomplished was either incomplete for various  reasons,
satisfactory, or unsatisfactory when the training flight was  given  to  the
Director of Training.  His  unit  commander  tried  everything  possible  to
remove him  from  the  Squadron.   He  admits  he  did  not  study  for  the
Instrument Qualification check ride.  He passed the retest and the  Tactical
check ride.  He is currently an Emergency Medical Service  (EMS)  helicopter
pilot.  He has taken several  check  rides  and  has  learned  to  fly  five
additional  types  of  helicopters.   He  has   been   flying   safely   and
successfully  in  a  variety  of  different  situations  and  takes  an  FAA
instrument check ride twice a year.

In support of his request, applicant provides a personal statement,  initial
training records, documents associated with  his  suspension  from  aviation
duties  and  documents  associated  with  the  FEB  action.   His   complete
submission, with attachments, is at Exhibit A.

_________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

Records reflect the applicant served in an enlisted  and  officer  (aviation
service) status in the Army Reserve from 23 November 1983 until 6 May  1999,
when his request for an interservice transfer was approved.   Prior  to  his
transfer, the applicant was serving as a Petroleum Platoon Leader.

On 7 May 1999, the applicant was appointed a captain,  Reserve  of  the  Air
Force and awarded the USAF pilot rating (helicopter only).  The  applicant’s
record contains three AF Forms  707B,  Officer  Performance  Reports  (OPRs)
beginning with the rating period 7 May 1999 and  ending  6  May  2002.   The
reports ending 6 May 2000 and 6 May 2001 contain overall ratings  of  “Meets
Standards.”  The report ending 6 May 2002 was  a  referral  report.   On  19
November  2002,  the  applicant  met  an  FEB  for   unsatisfactory   flight
performance  and  excessive  training.   Effective  28 February  2004,   the
applicant  was  assigned  to  the  Non-obligated  Reserve  Section.   He  is
currently serving in the Army National Guard.

_________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATIONS:

AFRC/JA recommends denial.  JA states that the applicant’s  contention  that
his disqualification from aviation service was based  on  a  “single  failed
instrument ride” is incorrect.  The overwhelming  documentary  evidence  and
witness testimony presented to the FEB demonstrated that his  flying  skills
were erratic and deficient, he possessed  poor  situational  awareness,  had
difficulty with instrument flying, committed  repeated  mistakes  and  gross
errors, and required special training and additional  flights.   JA  advises
that the FEB board was conducted in accordance with the governing  directive
and there is no basis or reason to conclude the board should  be  reconvened
to consider additional evidence; or, that a new board is necessary based  on
any allegation of fraud, collusion, or incorrect judgment  on  the  part  of
the board members.  The AFRC/JA complete evaluation is at Exhibit C.

The  AFRC/A2A3  recommends  denial.   A2A3  states  that   the   applicant’s
commander lost total confidence in  his  ability  to  safely  perform  pilot
duties; therefore, it was determined that he  be  disqualified  due  to  his
demonstrated lack  of  basic  instrument  flying  skills,  difficulty  in  a
multitask environment and inability to proficiently and safely  perform  the
critical skills required to  fly  an  Air  Force  aircraft.   The  AFRC/A2A3
complete evaluation, with attachments, is at Exhibit D.

_________________________________________________________________




APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATIONS:

Applicant provided a response addressing the points made by  the  advisories
and adds that the statement regarding his flying skills and  that  he  is  a
danger to himself and others is totally unfounded.  He has been  flying  EMS
single pilot missions for the last 3 years.  He flies with a crew of two  or
three and has had no incidents or accidents.  He is  current  and  qualified
in two different aircraft and takes two instrument check rides  every  year.
The applicant’s complete letter is at Exhibit F.

_________________________________________________________________

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.  Insufficient relevant evidence has been  presented  to  demonstrate  the
existence of an error or injustice.  After carefully reviewing the  evidence
before  us,  we  are  not  persuaded  that  the  FEBs’  decision  should  be
overturned or that the FEB action should be expunged from his  records.   In
our opinion, the applicant’s  disqualification  from  aviation  service  was
neither contrary to the provisions of the governing instruction nor  unjust.
 Absent strong evidence to the  contrary,  we  are  more  inclined  to  give
deference to  those  authorities  vested  with  the  duties  of  determining
whether an individual meets the demanding requirements of flying  Air  Force
aircraft.  We noted the arguments of the applicant; however, they  have  not
persuaded us that his opportunity to complete pilot  training  was  unjustly
hampered by unfair practices by his  unit  commander,  as  he  contends.   A
review of the applicant’s flight training records by  competent  authorities
appears  to  have  revealed  a  history  of  systemic  problems   and   poor
performance, resulting in his commander losing confidence in his ability  to
safely perform the required pilot duties.  Other than  his  own  assertions,
the applicant has provided no evidence substantiating his claim that he  was
treated unfairly.  In the absence of evidence showing that  the  information
contained in the FEB is  erroneous  or  that  his  substantial  rights  were
violated, we agree with the detailed assessment of the Air Force offices  of
primary responsibility and find that the  applicant  has  not  substantiated
his burden of proof that his  disqualification  from  aviation  service  was
either in error or unjust.  Accordingly, this application is  not  favorably
considered.

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 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-2007-01981
in Executive Session on 11 October 2007 under  the  provisions  of  AFI  36-
2603:

            Mr. Wayne R. Gracie, Panel Chair
            Ms. B J White-Olson, Member
            Mr. Mark J. Novitski, Member

The following documentary evidence  pertaining  to  Docket  Number  BC-2007-
01981 was considered:

   Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 15 June 2007, w/atchs.
   Exhibit B.  Applicant’s Master Personnel Records.
   Exhibit C.  Letter, AFRC/A3, dated 9 August 2007.
   Exhibit D.  Letter, AFRC/A2A3, dated 20 August 2007, w/atch.
   Exhibit E.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 31 August 2007.
   Exhibit F.  Letter, Applicant, dated 26 August 2007.




                                   WAYNE R. GRACIE
                                   Panel Chair