RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF:	DOCKET NUMBER:  BC-2013-04758
XXXXXXXXXX		COUNSEL:  XXXXXXXXXX
			HEARING DESIRED:  NO


APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

1.  The Flying Evaluation Board (FEB) findings issued on 13 April 
2010, which disqualified him from aviation service and forbade him 
to wear the pilot badge be reversed.

2.  He be reinstated into the Air Force as a pilot. 

3.  He be allowed to train to fly the UH-lN helicopter.

4.  His Promotion Recommendation Form (PRF) be changed from a “Do 
Not Promote” to a “Promote” recommendation.

5.  His records reflect that he was promoted to the grade of 
captain (O-3) as a result of the Calendar Year 2010 (CY10) Central 
Selection Board (CSB).


APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

The applicant’s counsel presents the following major contentions:

Unit leadership did not follow the assignment policies and 
guidance as outlined in Air Education and Training Commander 
Instruction (AETCI) 36-2205, Volume 4, Formal Flying Training 
Administration and Management - T-1, T-6, T-37, T-39, T-43, and 
UH/TH-1H, dated 1 June 2009.  

He was unfairly denied his first assignment choice to fly UH-1N 
helicopters because he did not participate in certain activities 
during Specialized Undergraduate Pilot Training-Helicopter (SUPT-
H).

He ranked higher than those students in his class who received the 
available UH-1N assignments.  When he took action to correct this 
injustice through the only means then available to him, the FEB 
subsequently disqualified him from aviation service and forbade 
him from wearing the pilot badge.  Consequently, his rater gave 
him a “Do Not Promote” recommendation and he was not selected for 
promotion to the grade of captain.

In support of his requests, the applicant provides copies of his 
AF Forms 475, Education/Training Report; AETC Form 173, Student 
Record of Academic /Nonacademic Counseling and Comments; AF Form 
709, Promotion Recommendation; Office Performance Report, Letters 
of Recommendation, Air Force Achievement Medal Citation, FEB 
Notification, FEB Proceedings, Nonselection for Promotion 
memorandum, Merit Assignment Selection System (MASS) Ranking, and 
various other documents related to his requests.

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


STATEMENT OF FACTS:

On 31 July 2007, the applicant entered the Regular Air Force.

According to AETC Form 173, Student Record of Academic/Nonacademic 
Counseling and Comments, dated 2 February 2010, the applicant 
requested to be permanently removed from the HH-60G Mission Pilot 
Upgrade Qualification course.  The applicant was counseled on the 
potential consequences of his actions and was given two weeks to 
reconsider his decision.  On 18 February 2010, the applicant stood 
by his decision to be removed from the aforementioned course.

In a letter to the wing commander dated 19 March 2010, the 
applicant requested that he be eliminated from the HH-60G Mission 
Pilot Upgrade Qualification course and instead be enrolled in the 
UH-1N Mission Pilot Qualification course.

In a letter dated 19 March 2010, the applicant was directed to 
meet an FEB which would convene to develop and consider evidence 
concerning his professional qualifications as a pilot and make 
recommendations regarding his future flying duties.

On 13 April 2010, an FEB disqualified the applicant from aviation 
service and forbade him to wear the pilot badge.

In a memorandum dated 29 April 2010, the applicant’s senior rater 
notified him that he did not recommend he be selected for 
promotion.  He further advised the applicant that if he felt the 
report was inaccurate, unjust or unfairly prejudicial he could 
write a memorandum to the Management Level (ML) with his concerns.  
Via a memorandum dated 4 May 2010, the applicant submitted a 
letter to the ML disagreeing with the “Do Not Promote” 
recommendation.

On 5 October 2010, the AETC commander agreed with the FEB findings 
that the applicant be disqualified from aviation service and that 
he be forbidden to wear the pilot badge.

On 8 October 2010, the wing commander informed the applicant that 
he was considered but not selected for promotion to the grade of 
captain by the CY 2010B CSB.

On 23 February 2011, the applicant submitted a request to separate 
using the “Voluntary Separation” application.  The applicant's 
commander recommended approval and forwarded the request to the 
applicant's wing commander who also recommended approval.

On 27 April 2011, the Secretary of the Air Force Personnel Council 
accepted the resignation tendered by the applicant for 
“Miscellaneous Reasons” and directed an honorable discharge from 
the Air Force effective 1 September 2011.  He served 4 years, 
1 month and 1 day of active duty.


AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

AF/A30-A1F recommends denial of the applicant’s requests to 
reverse his disqualification from aviation service and allow him 
to wear the pilot badge.  The FEB is the final authority and they 
determined the applicant was permanently disqualified from 
aviation service and prohibited from wearing the pilot badge.  The 
FEB was conducted in accordance with (IAW) AFI 11-402, Aviation 
and Parachutist Service, Aeronautical Ratings and Aviation Badges.  
The AETC commander executed his right as the final approval 
authority for the FEB.  The AETC commander’s letter, dated 
5 October 2010, states “I agree with the findings and recommend 
the applicant be disqualified from aviation service and that he be 
forbidden to wear the pilot badge.”  This statement fulfilled the 
requirements in AFI 11-402.

The complete A30-A1F evaluation is at Exhibit C.

AFPC/DPSIDEP recommends denial of the applicant’s request to 
change his PRF from a “Do Not Promote” to a “Promote” 
recommendation.  The applicant has not provided sufficient 
evidence to substantiate the accusations that the PRF was written 
with bias or that the subject PRF was inaccurate or in error at 
the time it was written.  To grant the applicant’s request would 
circumvent the senior rater's promotion recommendation.

The complete DPSIDEP evaluation is at Exhibit D.

AFPC/DPSOR recommends denial of the applicant’s request to be 
reinstated in the Air Force.  The applicant voluntarily requested 
separation that was properly coordinated through the appropriate 
channels and approved by the appropriate discharge authority.  
Therefore, the discharge to include the separation code, narrative 
reason for separation and character of service was appropriately 
administered and within the discretion of the discharge authority.

The complete DPSOR evaluation is at Exhibit E.

AETC/A3F does not make a recommendation.  The applicant and his 
counsel assert the unit did not follow established policy and 
guidance when making the assignment.  The sole intent for this 
advisory is to review and affirm the MASS.  The fundamental 
declaration of the application is that the FEB would not have 
occurred had the applicant been assigned to his first aircraft of 
choice at the completion of SUPT-H.  MASS is a command-directed 
performance tool provided to aid commanders in student advanced 
track selection, Major Weapons System (MWS) assignment, and final 
graduation order of merit.  Part of the leadership challenge is 
managing expectations during the assignment process, as commanders 
must make some difficult decisions in regards to follow-on 
aircraft assignments.  As the applicant was highly ranked in his 
class, it is predictable he would not be assigned to the less 
demanding aircraft.  Commanders must keep the needs of the Air 
Force as a primary goal.  Individuals drawn to be aircrew members 
are by their nature, high achievers and very competitive.  The 
merit ranking system provides commanders with a performance-based 
tool to aid in the challenging decision process when making 
assignment matches before graduation and winging. 

The complete A3F evaluation, with attachment, is at Exhibit F.

AFPC/JA recommends denial and concurs with the conclusions and 
recommendations reached in the aforementioned advisories.  The 
evidence shows that the applicant voluntarily accepted the HH-60G 
assignment, but then decided to eliminate from this formal course 
of training so he could be assigned to UH-lH aircraft training.  
The applicant  argues that his actions were to better the Air 
Force by correcting an atmosphere and procedures that were not 
only unfair to him but which actually had the potential to put 
unsafe unqualified persons a the control of aircraft.  This self-
serving contention adds to the overwhelming evidence that 
applicant took a totally selfish approach to the helicopter 
training, going so far as to drop out of the training that the Air 
Force had already determined was in its best interest. 

The complete JA evaluation is at Exhibit G.


APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF THE AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

The advisory opinions address the various components of the 
applicant’s case.  However, the AETC/A3F and AFPC/JA advisory 
opinions are most directly relevant to the applicant’s primary 
contention that he was unjustly and erroneously denied the 
aircraft assignment that he had earned.  JA specifically refers to 
the A3F advisory and effectively adopts it as written.  JA also 
unfairly mischaracterizes counsel’s argument in favor of the 
applicant’s case calling it a “self-serving contention.”  Of 
course it is “self-serving,” it is an argument in favor of a 
strongly held position that the applicant believes in.  Counsel 
earnestly expects the Board to look beyond this advisory and 
decide for itself the evidence in this case.  Counsel specifically 
refers the Board to the many character letters included with the 
original application which directly rebut JA's statement that the 
applicant took a totally selfish approach to helicopter training 
and resigned after not getting his way.  The applicant left the 
Air Force with hopes of flying for a sister service. 
Unfortunately, the FEB outcome has foreclosed that possibility for 
the applicant; all the more reason for the Board to correct the 
error and injustice in this case.

The JA advisory opinion is not based on the Air Force instruction 
in effect in this case.  JA and A3F both incorrectly cite AETCI 
36-2205, Volume 4, dated 24 July 2012.  AETCI 36-2205, Volume 4, 
dated 1 June 2009, was in effect and applied to the applicant.  
Therefore, without a doubt, both A3F and JA advisory opinions 
should be disregarded because they do not provide meaningful 
guidance as to how the Board should interpret and apply the 
controlling Air Force instruction.  On the other hand, the actual 
instruction in effect at the time completely supports the 
applicant’s case.

AETCI 36-2205, Volume 4, dated 1 June 2009, is explicit at 
paragraph 7.10.2.2.4.2 when it says, “Ensure the top 10 percent of 
graduates receive their first choice, if available.”  This is a 
far cry from “if available, the top 10 percent of graduates should 
receive their first choice.”  

Moreover, AETCI 36-2205, Volume 4, dated 1 June 2009, paragraph 
7.10.2.2.4.3, explicitly requires that MWS assignment procedures 
“use the rank order listing and the student's AF IMT 3849 to 
provide the best match of the student's desires with available MWS 
aircraft” and “All students receive their first choice of MWS 
aircraft, if available" and “if a student's first choice is not 
available, go to the second (third, etc.) choice until a match is 
found.”  

In fact, it should be noted again that the Summary of Changes at 
the beginning of the latter version of the instruction 
specifically states that paragraph 7.10.2.2.4.3 was changed from 
the 1 June 2009 version of the instruction to the 24 July 
2012 version.  This change was to take out the sentences which 
stated “all students receive their first choice of MWS aircraft, 
if available” and “if a student's first choice is not available, 
go to the second (third, etc.) choice until a match is found.”  
Obviously, the applicant’s case motivated this change and A3F 
knows that the instruction in place for the applicant required 
that he get his first choice of available aircraft.  In the 
applicant’s case, there is simply no wiggle room:  if the aircraft 
is available, he gets it, period.

Counsel sought input from various flying training squadron 
commanders on how they executed the MWS aircraft assignment 
process at the time of the applicant’s case.  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.  The 
applicant’s MWS aircraft assignment process, on the other hand, 
was an aberration that should not have taken place.

Clearly, the applicant suffered error and injustice when he was 
denied the aircraft assignment he earned.  If he had correctly and 
rightfully been assigned to the UH-IN helicopter, the FEB and “do 
not promote” recommendation and promotion pass-over would not have 
ensued.  The Board’s attention to the extremely positive character 
references will demonstrate that the applicant does not have 
habits, traits of character, or personality characteristics that 
make it undesirable for him to serve as an aircrew member in 
flying duties.  Quite the contrary is true.  

Counsel’s response, with attachments, is at Exhibit I.


ADDITIONAL AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

AETC/A3F again does not make a recommendation.  MASS policy and 
guidance as applied in the applicant’s case is described in AETCI 
36-2205, Volume 4, dated 1 June 2009.  Track and MWS assignment 
processes consider three elements in order of precedence.  First 
and foremost is “Needs of the Air Force;” second is assignment 
availability; third is students’ desires.  As described in the 
instruction, squadron commanders and flight commanders assemble to 
assess student performance, rank students in merit order, and make 
recommendations for assignments.  At this point in the process, 
the final determination of flight commander ranking is made using 
the matrix provided in AETCI 36-2205, Volume 4.

The only individuals who have the best opportunity of a first 
aircraft of choice are the top 10 percent of graduates.  From 
AETCI 36-2204 Volume 4, Section 7.10.2.2.4.2, “Ensure the top 10 
percent of graduates receive their first choice, if available.”  
Wing commanders make the final decision on the best match of 
student skill, potential and desire with the available aircraft.

AETCI 36-2205 Volume 4, Chapter 7, references “best match of the 
student’s skills, potential, desires and available training quotas 
or aircraft”.  There is likely no “perfect match,” where all 
students receive their first choice and their skills match with 
their assigned follow-on aircraft.  Supervisors and commanders 
must have some flexibility in their decision process in order to 
meet the needs of the Air Force.  A “best match” decision will not 
be a perfect match.  Matching the right student to the right 
aircraft, will mean some students may be disappointed in the final 
assignment process.  The needs of the Air Force do come first.

The complete A3F evaluation, with attachment, is at Exhibit J.


APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF THE ADDITIONAL AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

A3F states that commanders use MASS as a “start point” in making 
decisions on aircraft assignments.  In making this statement, A3F 
underlines its assertion for “clarity and emphasis;” however, they 
do not cite to any particular specific provision of AETCI 36-2205, 
Volume 4, dated 1 June 2009, to support this assertion.  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, potential, and desire with 
available aircraft; this despite the clear mandate of AETCI 36-
2205, Volume 4, Paragraph 7.10.2.2.4.3., to use the “rank order 
listing,” or MASS, and the student's AF IMT 3849, 
PME/AIT/RTFB/Officer Worksheet, to “provide the best match of the 
student's desires with the available MWS aircraft” and that “all 
students receive their first choice of MWS aircraft, if 
available.”  Paragraph 7.1.1. makes clear that there are three 
specific elements of the MWS assignment process: (1) the needs of 
the Air Force; (2) assignment availability; and (3) student 
desires.  Obviously, assignment availability is primarily a 
function of available aircraft for a given pilot training class.  
Just as obvious, student desires are annotated on his or her AF 
IMT 3849.  With respect to each of these two elements, commanders 
do not make decisions.  The only remaining element of the 
assignment process is the needs of the Air Force and this is where 
pilot training squadron and flight commanders actually do make 
decisions.  AETCI 36-2205, Volume 4, paragraph 7.1.2., explicitly 
states that to aid these commanders in making decisions with 
regard to what best suits the needs of the Air Force, MASS, a 
command directed performance measurement tool is provided which 
provides student relative ranking to be used for MWS assignment 
decisions.  Counsel agrees that paragraph 7.1.3. does provide that 
the wing commander or, in the case of the HELO Assignment 
Selection Process, the operation group commander, is the approval 
authority for all MWS assignment decisions but emphatically notes 
that this same paragraph explicitly provides that any deviation 
from the requirement to use MASS as required by the instruction 
must originate at the wing commander or operation group commander 
level for review by A3F.  This is a far cry from A3F’s general 
assertion that the wing commander makes the final decision on the 
best match of student skill, potential, and desire with available 
aircraft.  The more accurate reading of the instruction, is that 
MASS must be used to provide the best match of the student's 
desires with the available MWS aircraft to ensure that all 
students receive their first choice of MWS aircraft, if available, 
and that the wing commander or operations group commander, is 
tasked with ensuring through the approval process that the 
instruction's mandate was followed unless there is a need for a 
deviation which then originates at the level of the wing commander 
or operations group commander.  In the applicant’s case, the 
deviation from the mandate of the instruction did not originate at 
the operation group commander level.  Instead, his flight 
commander made the deviation in violation of the instruction 
without authority or approval.  

MASS generates a merit ranking which is an overall assessment of 
the student's airmanship and capability based upon demonstrated 
performance and includes the flight commander's assessment of the 
student's flying skills, leadership, teamwork, officership, 
attitude, and potential to complete follow-on training.  
Therefore, the notion that a student's potential to complete 
follow-on training may be grounds for deviation from the mandates 
of the instruction is not supported.  A student's potential to 
complete follow-on training is already incorporated into the MWS 
assignment selection process through the use of MASS and is not an 
independent consideration for deviating from the instruction, as 
was done in the applicant’s case. 

Counsel also disagrees that it was permissible for the applicant’s 
flight and squadron commander to assign students ranked below him 
to his desired MWS assignment as function of their experience and 
judgment on a best match.  This is not an authorized deviation 
from the mandates of the instruction.  These commanders' 
experience and judgment was expected to be exercised through their 
development of the MASS merit rank ordering when they had the 
opportunity and duty to provide their assessment of each student's 
flying skills, leadership, teamwork, officership, attitude, and 
potential to complete follow-on training.  If the lower ranking 
students did not have the potential to complete follow-on training 
in all of the aircraft in their class's drop, they should not have 
been graduated. 

In the final analysis in this case counsel asks the Board to 
carefully consider that the version of AETCI 36-2205, Volume 4, 
that was in effect at the time of the controversy in this case 
explicitly mandated that the applicant should have been assigned 
to a UH-IN helicopter because of his merit order ranking in MASS 
and his expressed desire for this assignment above all others.  It 
is clear that AETCI 36-2205, Volume 4, was not followed despite 
the requirement that compliance was mandatory. Hence, the FEB 
findings and recommendations were erroneous because they failed to 
see the clear violation of AETCI 36-2205, Volume 4, in this case.

Counsel’s complete response is at Exhibit L.

In a separate letter to the Board dated 22 February 2015, the 
applicant reiterates how complex his case is and how difficult it 
has been to summarize the circumstances pertaining to his 
petition.  He writes at length about the Air Force Core Values and 
how they set the standard for the behavior that should be 
exhibited by all airmen.  His primary focus is the importance of 
the first core value; he asserts that the lack of integrity is 
relevant to his petition because nothing destroys a unit’s 
effectiveness quicker than a lack of integrity on the part of its 
leadership.  He should have spoken out sooner about the misconduct 
he observed and he should have answered the FEB member's question 
about remaining in HH-60s in the affirmative.  Nevertheless, his 
contention is and always has been that there was a breach of 
integrity in the assignment process; therefore, he requested an 
FEB to review this process.  He has maintained from the beginning, 
that he is willing to serve in any airframe, in any capacity, 
given a fair and equitable assignment process.  His actions were 
not reflective of someone who lacks character, but rather someone 
who was guided by it. 

The applicant’s complete response is at Exhibit M.


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 injustice.  After a 
thorough review of the evidence of record and the applicant's 
complete submission, we are not persuaded that relief is warranted 
in this case.  The applicant's assertions that his unit did not 
follow the assignment policies and guidance as outlined in AETCI 
36-2205, Volume 4, is duly noted; however, we are not persuaded by 
the evidence, to include the numerous character reference letters, 
that the FEB was unjustly convened or that the actions taken to 
disqualify him from aviation service and from wearing the pilot 
badge were inappropriate.  As such, we find no basis to reverse 
the FEB’s decision in his case.  Given the applicant’s remaining 
requests for relief are all predicated upon the reversal of the 
actions taken by the FEB, we also find no basis to grant his 
remaining requests.  Therefore we agree with the opinions and 
recommendations of the Air Force offices of primary responsibility 
and adopt the rationale expressed as the basis for our conclusion 
the applicant has failed to sustain his burden of proof that he 
has been the victim of an error or injustice.  In view of the 
above and in the absence of evidence to the contrary, we find no 
basis to recommending granting any of 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 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 this application in 
Executive Session on 15 January 2015 and 31 March 2015, under the 
provisions of AFI 36-2603:

    , Panel Chair
    , Member
    , Member

The following documentary evidence pertaining to AFBCMR BC-2013-
04173 was considered:

    Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 30 September 2013, w/atchs.
    Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
    Exhibit C.  Letter, USAF A30/A1F, dated 7 January 2014.
    Exhibit D.  Letter, AFPC/DPSIDEP, dated 11 April 2014.
    Exhibit E.  Letter, AFPC/DPSOR, dated 24 April 2014.
    Exhibit F.  Letter, AETC/A3F, dated 10 June 2014.
    Exhibit G.  Letter, AFPC/JA, dated 19 June 2014.
    Exhibit H.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 27 June 2014.
    Exhibit I.  Letter, Counsel, dated 25 August 2014, w/atchs.
    Exhibit J.  Letter, AETC/A3F, dated 13 November 2014, w/atch.
    Exhibit K.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 20 November 2014.
    Exhibit L.  Letter, Counsel, dated 17 December 2014.
    Exhibit M.  Letter, Applicant, dated 22 February 2015.