AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2012-00415
COUNSEL:
HEARING DESIRED: NO
IN THE MATTER OF:
_________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:
His records be corrected to reflect he was not removed from
aviation training as a pilot and that he did not lose his
aeronautical badge (pilot wings).
_________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:
His actions during a student training ride on 29 January 2011 did
not justify his loss of wings or permanent removal from aviation
service. There was no mishap or risk of damage to an aircraft or
potential loss of life or injury. The FEB recommendations were
inappropriate based on a lack of evidence to support the board’s
ruling. In addition, his prior aviation record of performance as
a K-135 pilot should be considered as a basis for overturning the
decision by the commander of the Air Education and Training
Command (AETC).
In support of his appeal, the applicant provides a personal
declaration statement, a statement from his counsel, an Area
Defense Counsel’s letter, a 19th Air Force Special Interest Item
concerning Flight Discipline, personal memorandums to his
superiors in regard to the Flight Evaluation Board (FEB), a copy
of the FEB transcript, notification of the FEB’s decision, and
several letters of support.
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 applicant met an FEB on 25 March 2011 for lack of judgment
and violation of numerous aviation instructions during a training
sortie on 29 January 2011. The FEB board, convening authority,
and reviewing authority recommended the applicant be permanently
disqualified from aviation service, prohibited from wearing the
aviation badge, and be eligible for discharge from the Air Force
or be reassigned to non-aviation service in accordance with the
needs of the Air Force. On 29 June 2011, the approval authority
approved the findings and recommendations of the FEB.
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 C.
_________________________________________________________________
AIR FORCE EVALUATION:
AETC/A3V recommends denial. A3V states the applicant’s lack of
sound judgment and blatant disregard of standards and regulations
were severe enough to warrant review of his continued service as
a pilot through the FEB process. The recommendation to remove
him from aviation service and revoke the privilege of wearing the
aviation badge was justified and should stand.
The complete A3F evaluation, with attachment, is at Exhibit C.
_________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:
A copy of the Air Force evaluation was forwarded to the applicant
on 12 March 2012, 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 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. Therefore, in the
absence of evidence to the contrary, we find no basis to
recommend granting the relief sought in this application.
________________________________________________________________
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
2
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-2012-00415 in Executive Session on 20 September 2012,
under the provisions of AFI 36-2603:
The following documentary evidence pertaining to AFBCMR Docket
Number BC-2012-00415 was considered:
Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 30 Jan 12, w/atchs.
Exhibit B. Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
Exhibit C. Letter, AETC/A3V, dated 6 Mar 12, w/atchs.
Exhibit D. Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 12 Mar 12.
Panel Chair
Member
Member
Panel Chair
3
AF | BCMR | CY2006 | BC-2005-02208
Based on a review of the facts, we agree she should have met an FEB after her elimination from FWQ training as an FEB would be the only correct action to evaluate retention in (or removal from) training, and qualification for continued aviation service. She failed two opportunities to complete fixed wing training and should have met an FEB. ____________________________________________________________ THE BOARD RECOMMENDS THAT: The pertinent military records of the Department of the Air...
AF | BCMR | CY2013 | BC 2013 05783
In support of his requests, the applicant provides a 21-page memorandum, copies of the FEB findings and recommendations, Administrative Discharge Board findings, AF Form 3070C, Record of NJP Proceedings (Officer); LOE, OPR, AF Form 8 and various other documents associated with his requests. However, if the incident demonstrates unacceptable performance or an intentional disregard of regulations or procedures, a recommendation to disqualify is appropriate. Further, paragraph 4.6.4.,...
AF | BCMR | CY2013 | BC 2013 04758
Neither commander indicated that deviations from the instruction were authorized or made for needs of the Air Force. Instead, these commanders confirm that AETCI 36-2205, Volume 4, dated 1 June 2009, was closely followed throughout the training Air Force. Instead, A3F follows with another general assertion that chain-ofcommand oversight and management is essential to the aircraft assignment process and that the wing commander makes the final decision on the best match of student skill,...
On 9 Apr 97, the Board recommended he be considered by an FEB to determine his qualification for aviation service and that the results of the FEB be forwarded to the Commander, AETC, for final determination of his qualification for aviation service. A complete copy of the Record of Proceedings, with a corrected directive, is attached at Exhibit C. On 5 Feb 98, a second FEB was convened to consider evidence concerning applicant’s professional qualifications, specifically lack of judgment and...
AF | BCMR | CY2008 | BC-2006-03559
Available documentation indicates the applicant was a T-38 instructor assigned to the 50th Flying Training Squadron (50 FTS) at Columbus Air Force Base (AFB). AETC/A3F stated that if the Board’s decision is to provide relief, they recommend changing the 17 Nov 02 AF Form 8 to show it was a periodic Instructor/Mission Check, and expunging from the applicant’s records of the 28 Mar 03 AF Form 8. According to counsel, the evidence shows the applicant’s checkride began as a required periodic...
AF | BCMR | CY2004 | BC-2004-01805
_________________________________________________________________ AIR FORCE EVALUATION: AF/XOOT recommends the applicant, provided he now meets the minimum flying hour requirements for award of the pilot rating, first secure a helicopter pilot operational flying position and then submit an application to appear before an Aeronautical Review Board in accordance with AFI 11-402, paragraph 2.11. The complete evaluation is at Exhibit C. AETC/DOF recommends that the applicant not be reinstated...
AF | BCMR | CY2005 | BC-2004-02126
The applicant holds an aeronautical rating of navigator with an Aviation Service Date of 25 March 1996. It is COMACC’s opinion that the applicant’s requests have no basis and; therefore, he stands by the findings and recommendations of the FEB, the professional review and recommendations of the rated functional experts, the legal review for sufficiency of evidence, and the decision to permanently disqualify the applicant as a pilot in any type of Air Force aircraft. MICHAEL V....
AF | BCMR | CY2014 | BC 2014 00799
The remaining relevant facts pertaining to this application are contained in the memorandum prepared by the Air Force offices of primary responsibility (OPR), which are attached at Exhibits C, D, E, and F. AIR FORCE EVALUATION: AFPC/DPSIM recommends denial of the applicants request to remove the LOR. Rather, as an administrative action, the standard of proof for an LOR (and referral OPR) is a preponderance of the evidence; i.e., that it is more likely than not that the fact occurred as...
AF | BCMR | CY2004 | BC-2003-03830
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 | CY2006 | BC-2005-01622
_________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: His request for separation was disapproved even though the Air Force Board for Corrections of Military Records (AFBCMR) rescinded his Undergraduate Pilot Training (UPT)-incurred Active Duty Service Commitment (ADSC) of 18 October 2011 and the Record of Proceedings (AFBCMR Document Number BC-2004- 02126) stated that ACC/DOT would not hold him to his 10 June 2007 ADSC. ...