RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF:	DOCKET NUMBER:  BC-2009-00424
		COUNSEL:  NONE
		HEARING DESIRED:  YES


_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

His AETC Form 126A (Record of Commander’s Review Action) be changed to reflect “reinstate” to allow him to reenter the Specialized Undergraduate Pilot Training (SUPT) program.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

He was misinformed on the date he needed to depart for SUPT in order to report for training and start with the rest of his classmates.  He should have reported to training 10 days prior to the class start date to complete ancillary training requirements.  By reporting for training only a couple of days prior to the actual start date, he started out behind.  He was told by a senior non-commissioned officer who was processing his orders that he would only need to report to training two (or at the most three) days prior to the SUPT start date of 20 February 2008.  He was not instructed on the importance of reading his military orders.  In the past, he received verbal orders and when he got the order he never looked at them closely.

He was not afforded the opportunity to attend the Initial Flight Screening (IFS) which is mandatory for all active duty members.  Had he been allowed to attend IFS he would have had a better understanding of what it would take to be successful in SUPT.  Some of the areas covered by IFS are stand-up exercises, emergency procedure review, formal briefings, and understanding the grading standards.  Fellow classmates who attended the IFS course were better prepared going into SUPT than those reservists or guardsman who had not attended this course.  Because the IFS course is vital in the success pass/fail rate, as of 2009, all pilot training candidates will attend IFS, regardless of their flight experience.

He would have had a better understanding of the rigors of the academic and flying challenges and would have understood the protocol that is part of the military experience and expectations.  

With all the aforementioned, he was required to move from one dormitory to another, leaving him very tired and not able to concentrate which affected his testing ability.

He took and failed a weather exam and was required to retake the test less than 24 hours later.  The same day after retaking the test, he was required to fly within 2 to 3 hours which led to his inability to regroup and he was ultimately dismissed from SUPT.

His AETC Form 126A reflects an erroneous statement which indicates he did not solo, when in fact, he did.  He believes the form should have been corrected prior to being sent to his commanders for signature (it gives a false perception that he was less successful earlier on in his training than was true).

In support of his request he provides, a personal statement, a copy of his orders, a copy of letters of support, copies of a lodging receipt, a copy of training certificates, a copy of magazine articles, a copy of a welcome letter on IFS, a copy of excerpts from an AETC Report, a copy of a relocation notice, a copy of the AETC Pilot Training Syllabus, and a copy of his resume.

His complete submission, with attachments, is at Exhibit A.  

_________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

The applicant is currently serving in the Air Force Reserve in the grade of second lieutenant (0-1).

_________________________________________________________________

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 would have understood he was to report 10 days prior to the class start date.  

The IFS training course began 2 years ago and has not reached full capacity; however, many students who do not attend IFS are successful.  A3F defers to AFRES to clarify their policy regarding IFS.

As for the dormitory relocating issue; the applicant did not note to counselors during counseling sessions that he was experiencing any difficulties during the move.

A3F responds to the applicant’s accusation of having to retake an exam within less than a 24 hour period.  The applicant should note that the test can be retaken no earlier than one training day after the failure occurred.  There was no violation in the syllabus by flying 3 hours after retaking an exam.


It appears the original type-written sortie entry was either C4189 or C4289, but then corrected with a pen and ink change as C4389 and initialed.  A3F acknowledges there was an error on the applicant’s AETC Form 126A that was not corrected.  The erroneous description following the sortie was “Pre-Solo Elimination Check.”  

A3F states any student attending SUPT must be prepared for the rigorous challenges and changing environment that may be presented in any optioned training day, which can include academic, simulator, and aircraft lessons in order to meet required timelines.

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

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

The applicant provides comments on the five issues addressed by HQAETC/A3F.  He reemphasizes the impact he believes these issues had on his ability to complete SUPT.  In particular, the applicant summarizes his contentions by stating his performance was directly impaired by arriving to SUPT only two days prior to the start date and he was not afforded the opportunity to attend IFS with his active duty counterparts which led to the root of his performance and troubles while in SUPT.  The attrition rate for reservists is 17.2 percent and only 10.5 percent for active duty members who attended the IFS course.  Also, his AETC Form 126A reflected a statement of his performance that did not capture an accurate depiction of his performance to that point.  However, he believes the recommendation made by his Commander to the group commander may have been tainted based on erroneous information on the form.  He believes the system does not provide for an equal opportunity for success to all component members of the Air Force.  He realizes that he should have voiced his difficulties and experiences that led to his dismissal from SUPT, prior to being eliminated from the program.  

His evaluation 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 an error or an injustice warranting his reinstatement into SUPT.  We took notice of the applicant’s complete submission in judging the merits of the case; however, we find no evidence of an error or injustice.  The applicant’s contentions relating to arriving to SUPT late are duly noted; however, the order clearly states the course reporting date right next to the course start date, and it appears had he read the order correctly, he would have reported on time and would have been given the same opportunity in preparing for the course as his classmates.  Also, regarding the applicant’s assertion that he was disadvantaged due to not attending the IFS course; it is our opinion that the applicant has provided no evidence showing he was inequitably treated in comparison to similarly situated officers.   We can appreciate the applicant’s desire to be reinstated into SUPT and his many assertions are noted; however, we agree with the opinions and recommendation of the Training Pipeline Manager for Undergraduate Flying Training and Standardization Division and adopt his rationale as the basis for our conclusion that the applicant has not been the victim of an error or an injustice.  Therefore, based on the available evidence of record, we find no basis upon which to favorably consider this application.  

4.  Notwithstanding the above, as indicated by the office of primary responsibility and after reviewing the documentation submitted, we believe the applicant’s records should be corrected to show that AETC Form 126A, Section I, Initiating Authority, reflect his flying deficiencies as “Pre-Mid-Phase failure to progress” in order to accurately depict the applicant’s performance while in SUPT.  Accordingly, we recommend his records be corrected to the extent indicated below.

5.  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 involved.  Therefore, the request for a hearing is not favorably considered.

_________________________________________________________________

THE BOARD DETERMINES THAT:

The pertinent military records of the Department of the Air Force relating to APPLICANT be corrected to show that the AETC Form 126A (Record of Commander’s Review Action), initiated by the 37th Flying Training Squadron Commander be, and hereby is, amended in Section I, Initiating Authority block to read, “Flying Deficiencies – C4389 – Pre-Mid-Phase failure to progress,” rather than “Flying Deficiencies – C4189 or C4289 – Pre-Solo Elimination Check.”

_________________________________________________________________

The following members of the Board considered AFBCMR Docket Number BC-2009-00424 in Executive Session on 30 April 2009, under the provisions of AFI 362603:

, Panel Chair
, Member
, Member


All members voted to correct the records, as recommended.  The following documentary evidence was considered for Docket Number BC-2009-00424:

    Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 30 December 2008, w/atchs.
    Exhibit B.  Letter, AETC/A3F, dated 16 March 2009.
    Exhibit C.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 27 March 2007.
    Exhibit D.  Letter, Applicant, 22 April 2009




					
								Panel Chair



4


5