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 a 
later date. 

 

_________________________________________________________________ 

 

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: 

 

The AETC Form 126A does not reflect the true intent of the 
Eliminating Authority by not giving the Eliminating Authority the 
same recommendation options as the Reviewing Authority. The AETC 
Form 126A has now been edited to include these options for the 
Eliminating Authority on the new AETC Form 139. 

 

In support of his appeal, the applicant provides copies of a 
memorandum from his Eliminating Authority, his AETC Form 126A, 
and a blank AETC Form 139. 

 

The 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 
captain (O-3). 

 

The remaining relevant facts, extracted from the applicant’s 
master service records, are contained in the evaluation by the 
Air Force office of primary responsibility at Exhibit B. 

 

_________________________________________________________________ 

 

AIR FORCE EVALUATION: 

 

AETC/A3F recommends denial. A3F states that as described in AETC 
Instruction 36-2205, Formal Aircrew Training Administration and 
Management, and reiterated in the Specialized Undergraduate Pilot 
Training (SUPT) syllabus, once a student meets elimination 
criteria, they are placed in the Commander’s Review (CR) process. 


This initial CR action is the responsibility of the Flying 
Training Squadron Commander (Initiating Authority) and documented 
on the AETC Form 126A. Next in the chain of command, the 
Operations Group Commander (Reviewing Authority) reviews the 
student training, interviews the student, and provides a student 
disposition recommendation on the AETC Form 126A to the final 
Approving Authority (normally the Wing Commander or his deputy). 
The Approving Authority can reinstate or approve elimination. 
AETC Instruction 36-2205 states the Approval Authority will 
complete the AETC Form 126A annotating any recommendations for 
follow-on training for the student. One restriction specified in 
the instruction is pilot training eliminees will not be 
recommended for entry into any other SUPT track. 

 

A3F indicates that in this case, the Operations Group Commander 
recommended the applicant for elimination, but checked the block 
on the AETC Form 126A showing the student should be considered 
for reinstatement at a later date. The underlying supposition 
was the applicant did not have the potential to continue in the 
fighter/bomber track due to failure in the formation phase, but 
should be considered for the T-1 Airlift/Tanker advanced JSUPT 
track. At the time of the Approving Authority’s final review and 
signature, the Vice Wing Commander approved the elimination 
without making any recommendations as to student disposition or 
further training. It is assumed these individuals chose to go 
against MAJCOM published instructions because they felt strongly 
that the policy should not be applied to the applicant. However, 
empathetic opinions do not change the unequivocal policy guidance 
that students eliminated from training will not be placed in 
another track. 

 

A3F states that based on the examination of the available 
documentation, there is no evidence of error or injustice 
substantiating a reinstatement for further flight training. 
Therefore, they must recommend the applicant’s record stand as 
written. However, if the decision is to grant the requested 
relief, the applicant’s elimination record from SUPT should be 
expunged to allow him to compete for an ANG training quota 
providing he remains otherwise qualified for aircrew training. 
Because of the four year plus gap in training, if reentered into 
SUPT, recommend the applicant begin with a new pilot training 
class. 

 

The complete A3F evaluation is at Exhibit B. 

 

_________________________________________________________________ 

 

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: 

 

All of the information in the Air Force advisory opinion is 
absolutely true. The synopsis of his performance in the T-38 
advanced track is correct; however, it does not accurately 
portray the situation or his capability in the cockpit. Much of 
his sub-standard performance early in training was due to 


airsickness. Active episodes were the cause of multiple 
unsatisfactory flights, but more than that, it simply affected 
his ability to learn, retain, and perform. However, with 
determination and some impressive dedication by the Aerospace 
Physiology Unit at Vance Air Force Base, he was able to finally 
overcome this setback. 

 

He is pursuing a flying career with the Air National Guard (ANG) 
as it better fits with his other passions, life goals, and family 
plans. He was selected for an HC-130 pilot slot by the Alaska 
ANG in April 2009 and had made plans to separate on 20 April 2009 
to attend UPT again. However, he was notified by the National 
Guard Bureau and AETC/A3F on 19 April 2009 that according to AETC 
Instruction 36-2205, he was ineligible. 

 

He agrees with the decision of his elimination from the T-38 
program as he did not meet the excellence required of a combat 
aviator; however, he does posses the skills to lead a crew and to 
be a capable pilot in the Air Force. 

 

The applicant’s complete rebuttal 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 their 
rationale as the basis for our conclusion that the applicant has 
not been the victim of an error or injustice. While we note the 
applicant’s continued desire to pursue a flying career, we have 
not found he has been treated differently than others similarly 
situated. Therefore, in the absence of evidence to the contrary, 
we find no 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 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 AFBCMR Docket 
Number BC-2011-02211 in Executive Session on 23 February 2012, 
under the provisions of AFI 36-2603: 

 

 , Panel Chair 

 , Member 

 , Member 

 

The following documentary evidence pertaining to AFBCMR Docket 
Number BC-2011-02211 was considered: 

 

Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 1 Jun 11, w/atchs. 

Exhibit B. Letter, AETC/A3F, dated 19 Jul 11. 

Exhibit C. Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 29 Jul 11. 

Exhibit D. Letter, Applicant, dated 20 Aug 11. 

 

 

 

 

 

 Panel Chair