Search Decisions

Decision Text

AF | BCMR | CY2012 | BC-2012-00415
Original file (BC-2012-00415.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied
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



Similar Decisions

  • AF | BCMR | CY2006 | BC-2005-02208

    Original file (BC-2005-02208.doc) Auto-classification: Approved

    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

    Original file (BC 2013 05783.txt) Auto-classification: Approved

    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

    Original file (BC 2013 04758.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    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,...

  • AF | BCMR | CY1999 | 9900454

    Original file (9900454.doc) Auto-classification: Denied

    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

    Original file (BC-2006-03559.doc) Auto-classification: Approved

    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

    Original file (BC-2004-01805.doc) Auto-classification: Approved

    _________________________________________________________________ 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

    Original file (BC-2004-02126.DOC) Auto-classification: Approved

    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

    Original file (BC 2014 00799.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    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 applicant’s 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

    Original file (BC-2003-03830.DOC) Auto-classification: Approved

    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

    Original file (BC-2005-01622.DOC) Auto-classification: Approved

    _________________________________________________________________ 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. ...