RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF:	DOCKET NUMBER:  BC-2013-00332
			COUNSEL:  NONE
	  		HEARING DESIRED:  YES

________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

His records be corrected to reflect Aviation Service Code (ASC) 03, which denotes “medically disqualified from flight.” 

________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

His ASC 01, which denotes “fear of flying,” is incorrect In Accordance With (IAW) Air Force Instruction (AFI) 11-402, Aviation and Parachutist Service, Aeronautical Ratings and Badges, which states that ASC 03 will be assigned when a medical condition is directly related to the fear of flying.

He was diagnosed with and had a flight waiver for high-frequency hearing loss (60-65 decibels H-3).  The hearing loss made it difficult for him to hear radio calls, particularly in an overseas, task saturated environment.

In Dec 2001, he realized he was a safety risk while flying overseas and was anxious about flying because he could miss radio calls and kill his crew.

He was disqualified for fear of flying and his hearing loss was not considered in the disqualification although it was the underlying cause.  The medical condition, hearing loss, should have been directly linked to the fear of flying and ASC        03 should have applied.    

In support of his request, the applicant provides letters from his installation’s Chief of Aerospace Medicine and former commander, copies of AF Form 1042, Medical Recommendation for Flying or Special Operational Duty, and Officer Performance Reports (OPR).  

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 major (O-4).

In Jun 2000, the applicant completed flying training and was assigned as a C-21A Pilot/Scheduler.

In 2001, the applicant deployed to Saudi Arabia.  Upon return, the applicant was referred for a medical review.   

Aeronautical summary, dated 12 Jan 2001, reflects the applicant has asymmetric, high frequency hearing loss in his left ear and that he does not suffer any functional impairment secondary to this condition and continues to be a valued crewmember in the C-21.  He was maintaining a comprehensive hearing protection regimen and his hearing appeared stable.  It was recommended that he be granted a waiver for his H-3 hearing profile and the evaluating officer stated he did not feel his condition would affect his safety or the safety of others.    

Aeronautical summary, dated 24 Sep 2002, reflects the applicant had 1,095 flying hours with 220 flying hours over the previous six months.  The summary was submitted for consideration of his disqualification from flying class II duties for anxiety disorder, manifested as fear of flying.   The summary reflects the evaluating flight surgeon’s preliminary diagnosis as “anxiety state, unspecified (fear of flying).”   The flight surgeon noted that the applicant’s performance otherwise as a pilot was good.  The applicant was recommended for an Aeromedical Consultation Service (ACS).  

IAW AFI 11-402, rated officers and career enlisted aviators who professed a fear of flying are advised that fear of flying constitutes professional dereliction and are referred to the area defense counsel for legal assistance and were provided an opportunity to withdraw their fear of flying statement.  

Aeronautical Order, Number 453, dated 7 May 2003, permanently disqualified the applicant from aviation service and prohibited him from wearing the aviation badge due to, “disqualified-fear of flying.”  

________________________________________________________________


AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

USAF/A3O-AIF recommends denial.  The ASC 01, fear of flying, is correct and the applicant should continue to be prohibited from wearing the aviation badge.  The appropriate authorities found him medically fit for flying duties, both physically and mentally, yet he did not retract his fear of flying statement.  He was evaluated by an ACS, as recommended by the Air Mobility Command Surgeon General, which found that his fear was nonphobic and he was medically able to return to flying.  There is no evidence of an error or injustice and the disqualification was found legally sufficient and procedurally correct.  

The complete A3O-AIF evaluation is at Exhibit C.

________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

He did profess a fear of flying, it was nonphobic and he refused to retract it because he could not dependably hear radio calls and was terrified that he would miss or misunderstand a critical radio call killing him and several other people in the process.  He was anxious every time he left base ops to fly.  

The flight surgeon said he was medically fit but did not evaluate or consider his hearing loss documented throughout his medical records beginning in 1999 and continuing up until his disqualification in 2003.  Several of the attachments to his application show a clear and consistent history of hearing loss.  Furthermore, the flight surgeon did not consider the hearing waiver dated 12 Jan 2001.  

He has provided letters from his squadron commander and flight surgeon and requests the Board change his ASC to “03 medically disqualified.”  He worked hard for his wings and an injustice occurred when his wings were taken for nonmedical reasons.  

The applicant’s complete response is at Exhibit E.  

________________________________________________________________

ADDITIONAL AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

The BCMR Medical Consultant recommends denial.  The applicant contends that his fear was related to his concerns for missed or misinterpreted radio communication due to his hearing impairment that could jeopardize the lives of his crew and himself.  However, the applicant’s Aeromedical summary of Jan 2001, referring to the hearing deficit indicates that he does not suffer any function impairment secondary to this condition and continued to be a valued crewmember in the C-21.  The BCMR Medical Consultant empathizes with the applicant’s wishes to wear his earned wings, noting his demonstrated aerial accomplishments prior to interference of his flying career due to his questionable fear of flying.  However, the subsequent fear of flying, by policy, prohibits the wear of wings.  The applicant’s case was run past legal, medical and senior leadership authorities, and he had an opportunity to retract his fear of flying statement.  Thus, while it may appear to be an injustice to deprive the applicant of the wear of his earned wings, the evidence is insufficient to support the desired change of the record.  

The complete BCMR Medical Consultant’s evaluation is at Exhibit F.  

________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT’S REVIEW OF ADDITIONAL AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

In a letter dated 7 January 2014, the applicant states that the BCMR Medical Consultant references his aeronautical achievements as one cause for his disapproval but he asks the Board to consider the environment that he flew in.  He had 1,095 hours of flight time and over 1,000 were earned in the Continental United States (CONUS) with English speaking air traffic controllers.  He knew 90 percent of the time what the air traffic controller would say before they said it.  The few times he misunderstood radio calls, his flight instructors would repeat what the air traffic controller said and chalked up the incidents to task saturation. 

Flying overseas was completely different and he struggled there.  More often than not, he was not sure what the air traffic controller would say, their speech was not clear English, the pitch and frequencies were different, he could not understand them and his co-pilot would have to repeat everything.  It was terrifying to be an aircraft commander responsible for people’s lives and consistently misunderstand radio calls. 

It was 100 percent guaranteed that by the summer of 2003, he would be assigned to C-17 or C-5s and these airframes always flew overseas.  He was going to get people killed and went to see his flight commander.   

His new commander did not have the background of flying with him for the past two years and after consulting with the flight surgeon, asked if he wanted to meet a Medical Evaluation Board (MEB) and made it clear that there was a chance he could be medically discharged.  Because he wanted to stay in the Air Force, he declined to meet an MEB and instead asked to find another way.  He believes his commander was trying to help him and did not realize he would have this ASC.

The BCMR Medical Consultant references his Jan 2001 Aeromedical summary stating he did not suffer any functional impairment secondary to this condition, this statement is an opinion and is not based on facts as an in-flight hearing exam was not conducted to determine if he could hear well in flight.   Additionally, the BCMR Medical Consultant is not aware that as of Jan 2001 he had only been with his flying unit for a couple of months, not long enough to conclude anything about his hearing capacity.  Finally, in the fall of 2002, an in-flight hearing exam was not conducted when he was removed from flight.  

He has given the Board every piece of evidence he has.  He sacrificed his dream because he was a safety of flight risk and it was the right thing to do.  He asks the Board to do the right thing now as his long-term future in the Air Force depends on it.

The applicant’s complete response, with attachment, is at Exhibit G.   

On 8 Jan 2014, the applicant submitted an addendum to his response.  Prior to joining the Air Force, he spent four years as an active duty Marine with a lot of time around very loud equipment.  He entered flight training with hearing loss and it deteriorated in the year he was there to a 65 decibels loss.  In Jun 1999, he passed his entrance into flight training physical and was classified with an H-2 hearing profile and that said, must wear hearing protection when performing duties.  By Nov 2000, the time of his next physical after flight training, his hearing deteriorated further in the high frequency range and he was reclassified with an H-3 profile.

The applicant’s complete response, with attachments, is at Exhibit H.  

On 8 Jan 2014, via email, the applicant requested to personally appear before the Board.  

The applicant’s email is at Exhibit I.  

________________________________________________________________

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.  After carefully reviewing the evidence of record and the applicant’s complete submission, we find no error or injustice in this case.  While the applicant contends his ASC is incorrect, he has not provided substantial evidence showing that he had an unfitting medical condition to warrant changing his ASC to reflect that he was medically disqualified from flying duties – a prerequisite to the ASC code he is seeking.  We do not doubt that the applicant sincerely believes that his hearing impairment was a danger to those who flew with him and that this belief was at least in part responsible for his fear of flying.  We also note the letters from his former commander and flight surgeon, confirming his difficulties with hearing.  However, the evidence of record clearly reflects that the appropriate authorities found him medically fit for flying duties.  Moreover, we found no contemporaneous evidence which would lead us to believe that the decision to disqualify the applicant from flying due to a fear of flying was in error or contrary to the governing Air Force instructions.  While the applicant’s numerous contentions are noted, we do not find his assertions and the evidence presented sufficiently persuasive to override the rationale provided by the Air Force Offices of Primary Responsibility (OPR).  Therefore we agree with the opinions and recommendations of the Air Force OPRs and adopt the rationale expressed as the basis for our conclusion that the applicant has not been the victim of an error or injustice.  In the absence of evidence showing the applicant was treated differently from others similarly situated, or that his ASC was established contrary to the provisions of the governing policy, we find no basis to recommend granting the relief sought.  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 issue 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 Docket Number BC-2013-00332 in Executive Session on 19 Nov 2013 and 16 Jan    2014, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603:

	 , Panel Chair
         , Member
         , Member

The following documentary evidence was considered:

    Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 17 Jan 2013, w/atchs.
    Exhibit B.  Applicant’s Military Personnel Records. 
    Exhibit C.  Letter, HQ USAF/A3O-AIF, dated 31 Jan 2013, w/atchs.
    Exhibit D.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 8 Mar 2013. 
    Exhibit E.  Letter, Applicant, dated 8 Mar 2013.  
    Exhibit F.  Letter, SAF/MRBC, dated 7 Jan 2014, w/atch.
    Exhibit G.  Letter, Applicant, dated 7 Jan 2014, w/atch.
    Exhibit H.  Letter, Applicant, dated 8 Jan 2014, w/atchs.
    Exhibit I.  E-mail, Applicant, dated 8 Jan 2014.   
    




							 
                                   Panel Chair