RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
             AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF:                       DOCKET NUMBER:  BC-2006-03308
                                             INDEX CODE:
                                             COUNSEL:  ANTHONY W. WALLUK

                                             HEARING DESIRED:  YES


MANDATORY CASE COMPLETION DATE:  29 April 2008


________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

His Air Force Flying Training Records be expunged and he  be  reinstated  to
pilot training with the United States Navy (USN).

________________________________________________________________

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.   He  had  poor
instructor  continuity,  was  graded  subjectively,  and   syllabus/squadron
policies  were  not  followed.   Airsickness   medication   was   improperly
prescribed resulting in  two  weeks  of  “interference”  with  his  training
progression.  His elimination from AF training did not meet  USN  standards.
He was eliminated  for  deficiency  on  one  maneuver  –  Emergency  Landing
Pattern/Landing.

In support of his appeal, applicant submits a personal  statement  dated  18
October  2006,  and  an  undated  Board  for  Correction  of  Naval  Records
Application, signed by his legal counsel, with 14 attachments:   applicant’s
personal  statement,  Academic  Class  Standings  of  Mar-13-2003,   3   FTS
Operating Instruction 11-2 (08OCT02),  CNATRAINST  1542.140C  (Multi-Service
Pilot Training Systems Curriculum) (I-7  thru  I-9),  Flight  and  Simulator
Summary, NFO Training:  T-34C  gradesheets  (FAM-3  and  FAM-4),  CNATRAINST
1500.4F Chapter VIII (pg 3-8), Record of Commander’s Review Action  (26FEB03
and 17MAR03), and six supporting statements.

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

________________________________________________________________





STATEMENT OF FACTS:

Applicant is a USN  officer  who  voluntarily  entered  JSUPT  Class  04-02,
hosted by the USAF, at Moody AFB, GA, in late October 2002.

Applicant failed the seventh ride in the pre-solo  Contact  category  on  17
January 2003, and then passed the next six Contact  sorties  before  failing
another one on 31 January 2003.  Since this was an end-of-unit mission,  the
ride was repeated, and applicant  failed  two  repeat  sorties  with  normal
pattern, no-flap pattern, Emergency Landing Pattern (ELP), ELP landing,  and
pattern Breakout/Reentry problems noted.  IAW syllabus guidance, failure  of
three rides in succession results in a Progress Check  (PC),  and  applicant
failed the PC on 5 February 2003  for  ELP,  ELP  landing,  and  Situational
Awareness.

Two additional training rides were authorized on 11  February  2003  and  12
February  2003,  to  prepare  applicant  for  an  Elimination  Check   (EC).
Applicant passed both dual sorties and was approved for his initial solo  by
the Squadron Commander.

Applicant passed the next three rides  before  failing  one  on  18 February
2003 for normal pattern, no flap pattern, ELP, and ELP landing.   He  passed
the next end-of-unit ride, and then failed the Mid-phase  Contact  Check  on
24 February 2003 due to unsatisfactory ELP.  Two additional  review  sorties
were authorized and flown before  applicant  went  to  his  second  EC.   He
failed his EC  on  10 March  2003,  as  G-awareness,  ELP,  and  Situational
Awareness were graded below standard.  He was entered into  the  Commander’s
Review process IAW command guidance and subsequently  eliminated  from  T-6A
training due to flying training  deficiency  in  March  2003.   He  was  not
recommended for reinstatement into the course  at  a  later  date,  but  was
recommended for navigator training.

________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

AETC/A3F recommends denial and that no change  be  made  to  applicant’s  AF
training record as he was given a fair and equitable opportunity to  succeed
in AF-hosted JSUPT.  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  this
course at a later date”, and advise that since applicant wishes  to  reenter
USN  pilot  training,  he  must  reapply  IAW  established  USN  policy  and
procedures.

During the FY 04 classes  at  Moody  AFB,  there  were  a  total  of  20 USN
students dispersed across the 15 classes entered during that  FY.   Two  USN
students were eliminated from training, one for drop on request  (DOR),  and
one for flying training deficiency.  The USN  had  not  started  their  pre-
JSUPT program at that time and the other USN students at Moody AFB  did  not
have pre-JSUPT training.

He was given five additional  training  sorties  allowed  by  the  syllabus.
These extra-ordinary sorties  were  flown  with  other  than  his  primarily
assigned instructors, and this is a common,  sound  training  practice  when
students begin to show performance  problems.   Flight  commanders  match  a
poorly performing student with available, highly experienced instructors  to
give a student the best chance to succeed.  A review of his record shows  he
flew with a total of  nine  instructors  during  pre-solo  events,  and  the
majority of these were flown with three Instructor Pilots (IP) IAW  3rd  FTS
OI 11-2, which states “attempt to fly students with no more than three  IPs,
not including supervisors, during pre-solo contact.”

Airsickness guidance in AETCI  36-2205  directs  airsickness  medication  be
limited to a maximum of three sorties and,  while  they  cannot  comment  on
whether the prescribed pharmacological therapy had any side-effects,  it  is
considered a rare experience.  If there were any negative  side-effects,  it
was his responsibility to notify his instructor  and  the  attending  Flight
Surgeon.

A Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) exists  between  USAF  Air  Education  &
Training Command (AETC) and the USN Chief of Naval  Air  Training  (CNATRA),
and a joint AETC/CNATRA training working group  annually  reviews  the  MOU.
An excerpt from the MOU states  “Disenrollment  from  flying  training  will
either be based upon failure to meet  host  Service  training  standards  or
voluntary DOR.  Student review boards and elimination  procedures  shall  be
conducted in accordance with host  Service  directives.   A  parent  Service
representative shall serve as a board member  during  formal  review  boards
(USN) or will provide inputs  to  the  commander’s  review  process  (USAF).
Students eliminated from flight training will be referred  to  their  parent
Service for further Service options.  Naval students  will  be  referred  to
the Naval Personnel Command“.  AF and USN exchange  IPs  serve  in  exchange
positions in joint training units at host service wings.  These  individuals
are parent Service representatives to ensure  policies  and  procedures  are
fairly administered to students.

It is evident from his training  record  that  ELP  and  ELP  landings  were
consistently below standards, and that this is also true for  other  traffic
patterns related to  maneuvers,  to  include  normal  patterns  and  no-flap
patterns.

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

________________________________________________________________


APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

Applicant responded to the AETC/A3F  advisory  on  14  February  2007.   The
primary focus and bottom line of the advisory is his application  cannot  be
granted.  The advisory does not substantially  refute  any  of  the  factual
bases made in his application,  establishing  that  he  experienced  several
significant  obstacles  in  his  training.   There  is  no  denial   of   or
explanation for the numerous deviations from regulations and  policies  that
were made in his training regimen.  No argument was  made  in  the  advisory
that these obstacles were normal or should be expected in  the  training  of
every pilot.  His experience was clearly  extraordinary,  and  no  officer’s
future, especially one as significant as earning one’s wings,  should  hinge
on discretionary acts and/or whims of trainers.

While he realizes the AFBCMR cannot directly reinstate him into Naval  Pilot
Training, a positive action by this  board,  determining  that  he  did  not
receive a reasonable and fair opportunity for success in AF Pilot  Training,
would have significant force and effect on his request to the Navy  that  he
be entered into their flying training program.  Should this board  favorably
act on this application, he will petition the Navy Secretary  to  insure  he
has the opportunity to further serve the country as a pilot.

The basis for this application is he wants a chance to compete  on  an  even
playing field  which,  to  date,  has  not  occurred.   He  would  like  the
opportunity  to  go  through  pilot  training  in  a   setting   where   the
regulations, written to establish fairness  and  appropriate  training,  are
followed.

His records and experience clearly indicate he has the talent, the  ability,
and the character required to be a successful Navy or AF pilot.  One  flight
on emergency landing  procedures,  graded  questionably  as  unsatisfactory,
should not keep him from serving in the highest  capacity  of  which  he  is
capable.  He asks the AFBCMR to consider the positive  impact  the  decision
that he did not receive a complete and  fair  opportunity  to  complete  the
course  at  Moody  AFB  would  have  on  the  appropriate   Navy   officials
considering whether they could return him to flying training

Applicant’s complete response, with attachments, is at Exhibit D.

________________________________________________________________

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  error  or  injustice.   We  took  notice  of  the  applicant's
complete submission in judging the merits of the  case;  however,  we  agree
with the opinion and recommendation 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.   The
Board noted that disenrollment from flying training is  based  upon  failure
to  meet  specific  host  Service  training  standards,  or  voluntary  DOR.
Documentation indicates  that  applicant’s  check  rides  were  consistently
sporadic or below standards, as  were  other  traffic  patterns  related  to
maneuvers, to include normal patterns and no-flap patterns.  When  he  began
to show performance problems, applicant was given five  additional  training
sorties allowed by the syllabus, and these were flown with  other  than  his
primarily assigned instructors to give him the best chance to succeed.   The
Board also noted that during the FY 04 classes at Moody AFB,  there  were  a
total of 20 USN students dispersed  across  the  15 classes  entered  during
that FY, and only two USN students were eliminated from  training,  one  for
DOR,  and  one  for  flying  training  deficiency.   Although  documentation
submitted indicates that  applicant  may  have  had  training  obstacles  to
overcome, there is no evidence he did not  receive  a  reasonable  and  fair
opportunity for success in AF  Pilot  Training.   Additionally,  this  Board
cannot grant the relief sought to reinstate applicant  into  the  USN  Pilot
Training as his acceptance into this training is a matter of USN policy  and
procedures.  Therefore, in the absence of evidence to the contrary, we  find
no compelling  basis  to  recommend  granting  the  relief  sought  in  this
application.

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  Docket  Number  BC-2006-03308
in Executive Session on 14 March 2007, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603:


                       Ms. Patricia J. Zarodkiewicz, Vice Chair
                       Mr. Richard K. Hartley, Member
                       Mr. Garry G. Sauner, Member

The following documentary evidence was considered:

    Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 18 Oct 06, w/atchs.
    Exhibit C.  Letter, AETC/A3F , dated 28 Nov 06, w/atchs.
    Exhibit D.  Letter, Anthony W. Walluk, dated 14 Feb 07,
                w /atchs
    Exhibit E.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 11 Dec 06.




                                   PATRICIA J. ZARODKIEWICZ
                                   Vice Chair