RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS


IN THE MATTER OF:	DOCKET NUMBER:  BC-2013-05093
		COUNSEL: NONE
		HEARING DESIRED: YES 


APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

1.  He be granted an age and Total Active Federal Commissioned 
Service Date (TAFCSD) [sic] waiver to return to Undergraduate 
Pilot Training (UPT).

2.  He be reinstated into the first available Air Force UPT class 
at any location.


APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

In Jan 09, the Undergraduate Flying Training (UFT) Selection Board 
selected him to attend Specialized Undergraduate Pilot Training 
(SUPT) which was scheduled for Aug 09.  Subsequently, it was 
discovered that he had bladder cancer.  Medical stipulations for 
his return to UPT dictated a 2-5 year wait before continuing UPT.  

After 4 years and 10 months of waiting, he received a 
Flying Class I waiver and was medically qualified to attend UPT.  
Due to the mandatory wait time, his requests should be granted.  

The Air Force is short 250-plus pilots; there are many young and 
untested UPT candidates that will either washout or quit the 
program costing taxpayers hundreds of thousands of dollars.  His 
performance as an aviator and officer and commitment to duty, 
should be a testament in the investment of returning him to 
training.  

In support of his request, the applicant provides a personal 
statement, copies of his biography, excerpts from his medical 
records, AF IMTs 1042, Medical Recommendation for Flying or 
Special Operational Duty; AF Form 422, Notification of Air Force 
Member’s Qualification Status; DD Form 2808, Report of Medical 
Examination; DD Form 2807-1, Report of Medical History, and 
various other documents associated with his appeal.

The applicant’s complete submission, with attachments, is at 
Exhibit A.





STATEMENT OF FACTS:

The applicant is currently serving in the Regular Air Force in the 
grade of captain. 

AFI 36-2205, Applying for Flying Training, Air Battle Manager, and 
Astronaut Program, states “UFT age and TFCSD policies state that 
individuals who exceed 30 years of age and/or 5 years of 
commissioned service by the start of the first available UFT date 
require a Chief of Staff (CSAF) waiver (in the case of 
administrative, counseling, or medical errors) or an exception to 
policy prior to consideration.  Requests must be staffed through 
Major Command (MAJCOM) commanders.  Waiver and ETP approval 
authority is delegated to the Vice Chief of Staff of the Air Force 
(VCSAF).”

According to the Aeromedical Summary dated 18 Feb 13, the 
applicant experienced an episode of hematuria and was found to 
have small right-sided renal and ureteral calculi.  On 10 Nov 08, 
he underwent an ureteroscopy to extract kidney stones.  During the 
procedure, a growth was noted on the left side of his bladder, 
which was determined to be a high grade (very aggressive) 
papillary urothelial carcinoma.  Following the diagnosis, he 
underwent a Fast-Track Medical Evaluation Board (MEB) which 
resulted in an Assignment Limitation Code-C2 (ALC-C2), which 
denotes deployable/assignable to CONUS installations with 
intrinsic fixed Military Treatment Facilities (MTFs) due to the 
need for frequent follow-up.   

On 13-15 Jan 09, the applicant was considered and selected by the 
Air Force SUPT, Specialized Undergraduate Navigator Training, and 
Undergraduate Air Battle Manager Training Selection Board to 
attend SUPT in Aug 09.  

In 2009, the applicant requested and received an ETP that was 
endorsed by his former wing commander, 18th Air Force Commander 
(18 AF/CC), Air Mobility Command (AMC) Command Surgeon General 
(AMC/SG), and the AMC/CC.  

According to the Aeromedical Summary dated 18 Feb 13, the 
applicant was found disqualified for flying duties, but was 
granted a Flying Class IIB waiver, (qualified rated officer for 
duty in non-ejection seat aircraft) in 2009 to continue flying as 
a rated navigator limited to non-ejection seat aircraft.  

According to an undated ETP Aeromedical Risk Assessment, the 
applicant’s ETP waiver was suspended to allow him time for 
additional medical treatments.  Specifically, it was recommended 
delaying the applicant’s UPT start date for five years or, at a 
minimum, until at least two years had passed and his recurrence 
and surveillance rates had reduced.  

On 22 Aug 13, the applicant was medically cleared for flying 
duties


AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

AF/A1PPR recommends denial.  The applicant was eliminated due to a 
long-term medical reason.  A1PPR recommends he apply for the next 
AF UFT Selection Board, per AF policy.

AFI 36-2205, states “officer’s attending UFT who are eliminated 
due to short-term (less than 1 year) medical reasons (as 
determined by the eliminating authority) will be re-entered into 
the same UFT program following medical requalification.  Those 
officers who are eliminated due to long-term (1 year or more) 
medical reasons may reapply for consideration on the first UFT 
Selection Board following medical requalification as long as they 
remain otherwise eligible.”

The complete A1PPR evaluation is at Exhibit B.


APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

A copy of the Air Force evaluation was forwarded to the applicant 
on 10 Jan 14, for review and comment within 30 days.  As of this 
date, no response has been received by this office (Exhibit C).


THE BOARD CONCLUDES THAT:

1.  The application was timely filed.

2.  Insufficient relevant evidence has been presented to 
demonstrate the existence of error or injustice.  In this respect, 
we note this Board is the highest administrative level of appeal 
within the Air Force.  As such, an applicant must first exhaust 
all available avenues of administrative relief provided by 
existing law or regulations prior to seeking relief before this 
Board, as required by the governing Air Force Instruction.  The 
Air Force office of primary responsibility has reviewed this 
application and indicated there is an available avenue of 
administrative relief the applicant has not first pursued.  In 
view of this, we find this application is not ripe for 
adjudication at this level, as there exists a subordinate level of 
appeal that has not first been depleted.  Therefore, in view of 
the above, we find no compelling basis to recommend granting the 
relief sought in this application.




3.  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 he has not exhausted all available 
avenues of administrative relief prior to submitting his 
application to the BCMR; and the application will only be 
reconsidered upon exhausting all subordinate avenues of 
administrative relief.


The following members of the Board considered AFBCMR Docket Number 
BC-2013-05093 in Executive Session on 28 Aug 14, under the 
provisions of AFI 36-2603:

	Panel Chair
	Member
	Member

The following documentary evidence was considered:

	Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 25 Sep 13, w/atchs.
	Exhibit B.  Letter, AF/A1PPR, dated 9 Dec 13.
	Exhibit C.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 10 Jan 14.



4