RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS


IN THE MATTER OF: 			DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2014-02210
 					COUNSEL:   
					HEARING DESIRED:  YES 


APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

1.  The Flying Evaluation Board (FEB) be removed from his 
records.  

2.  His flying record be changed to reflect an administrative 
withdrawal from the KC-10 Pilot Instructor Course.  

3.  His disqualification from aviation service be rescinded and 
his full flight status be reinstated effective 20 May 10.  


APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

The Progress Review Board (PRB) was improperly triggered 
resulting in an unjustly convened FEB.  As a result, he was 
disqualified from further aviation service when such 
disqualification had no basis in existing Air Force regulations.

At the time, there was no formal training syllabus for the KC-
10 Formal Training Unit (FTU).  A formal training syllabus was 
not available until Feb 10. 

He assumed he was being trained under the published 2006 Pilot 
Instructor Course (PIC) syllabus.  It was not until the middle 
of the FEB that he discovered the FTU Chief and Operations 
Support Squadron (OSS) Commander did not know the syllabus 
existed.  The FTU Chief made up her own rule for when to convene 
a PRB.  At the sole PRB, the interim squadron commander used 
criteria in an unpublished syllabus not available for review.

Since being disqualified from aviation service, he has continued 
to serve honorably as a rated staff officer.  All he ever asked 
was to be treated fairly and In Accordance With (IAW) published 
regulations. 

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






STATEMENT OF FACTS:

On 16 Oct 92, the applicant entered active duty and is currently 
serving in the Regular Air Force in the grade of lieutenant 
colonel.    

According to an undated AMC/JA memorandum, a FEB was convened on 
16 Jun 10 to consider the applicant’s professional 
qualifications as a KC-10 Aircraft Commander and make 
recommendations regarding his future service as a pilot.  The 
memorandum states that the applicant requested the 60 AMW/CC not 
convene an FEB stating the FTU Chief wrongfully denied him a 
retraining opportunity and that he labored under personal 
difficulties which may have negatively impacted his flying 
duties.  The 60 AMW/CC convened the FEB following the 
applicant’s failure to complete upgrade training to become an 
instructor pilot.  The JA memorandum also states that he failed 
most training standards in that he did not attain a proficient 
level in instructor duties, airmanship, night receiver air 
refueling and autopilot; and he displayed a lack of judgment by 
electing to willfully continue training while subjected to major 
outside stressors and failure to realize that his performance 
may be affected.  

After hearing testimony and reviewing documentary evidence, the 
FEB found the applicant failed to meet training standards and 
lacked judgment IAW AFI 11-402, Aviation and Parachutist 
Service, Aeronautical Ratings and Aviation Badges paragraphs 
4.3.3 and 4.3.4.  The Staff Judge Advocate (SJA) determined the 
FEB to be fair and impartial and recommended the AMC/CC approve 
the recommendation to disqualify him from further aviation 
service for failing to meet training standards (vice lack of 
judgment) and permit him to retain the aviation badge.  

Per AMC/A3T memorandum dated 18 Jan 11, the AMC/CC approved the 
applicant’s permanent disqualification from aviation service.  
It was directed that aeronautical orders be published assigning 
Aviation Service Code (ASC) 05, which denotes “Disqualification 
from Aviation Service-Flying Evaluation Board” for failure to 
meet training standards.  He was permitted to wear the aviation 
badge. 

AFI 11-402, paragraph 4.3.3 states failure to meet academic or 
flying standards while enrolled in a USAF directed formal flying 
training course requires an examination of the aircrew member’s 
potential for continued aviation service and an FEB evaluates 
retention or removal from training and potential for continued 
aviation service.

According to the Flying Training KC-10 Pilot Instructor (PIC) 
Course Training Syllabus dated 30 Sep 06, Figure 2-1, progress 
review triggers include overall lesson/sortie grade of “fair” or 
“unsatisfactory” for a third consecutive time, failure to meet 
Required Proficiency Levels (RPL), Aircrew Training System (ATS) 
site manager recommendation, OSS Commander-directed, 
unsatisfactory open/closed/Instrument Refresher Course (IRC) or 
other syllabus-directed examinations. Progress review 
determinations are made to determine retraining, training 
modification or FEB. 

AFI 11-2KC-10, Volume 1, Travis AFB Supplement, paragraph 
1.16.1 states that a PRB will be conducted if the student fails 
to progress.  The PRB will be convened to review the trainee’s 
records and recommend continuing training, retraining, modify 
training or an FEB.   


AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

USAF/A3O-AIF recommends denial of the applicant’s requests and 
states that the FEB’s final approval authority determined the 
applicant should be permanently disqualified from aviation 
service.  Based on the documentation provided, the FEB was 
conducted IAW AFI 11-402.  The AMC/CC executed his right as the 
final approval authority for the FEB per the AMC/A3T letter 
dated 18 Jan 11 which states “AMC/CC has approved permanent 
disqualification from aviation service for failure to meet 
training standards.”  This statement fulfilled the requirements 
in AFI 11-402, paragraph 4.6.8.  

A copy of the A30-AIF evaluation is at Exhibit B.


APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

There is no advisory from AMC/A3T or any other formal training 
Office of Primary Responsibility (OPR).  There was an error made 
resulting in an injustice concerning his formal training 
syllabus while in the Pilot Instructor Course.  The syllabus 
error and the resulting injustice is the heart of his request.  
Based on the approved syllabus, his PRB was not justified and 
was convened in error.  Without the PRB, there would never have 
been an FEB and he would not have been disqualified from 
aviation service.  It is noteworthy that the only advisory 
submitted completely ignores the entire argument.  

The advisory gives no explanation why commanders at Travis AFB, 
CA in 2010 were unaware a formal training syllabus existed and 
had been approved by AMC since 2006.  The advisory also fails to 
address why it is acceptable for the FTU Chief to violate the 
applicant’s approved syllabus by making up her own rule when to 
send a student to a PRB.  This was clearly an error which 
violated the right to due process.  It was impossible to meet 
all training requirements since he was not allowed to complete 
training per his formal syllabus.  

There is precedence for over-turning a commander’s decision when 
there is a clear error leading up to the decision.  In AFBCMR 
Docket Number BC-2013-01719, the Board overturned an Article 
15 given for a failed drug test.  In that case, the applicant 
failed a drug test after taking prescription drugs.  According 
to the complaint, the applicant followed the correct actions for 
each level of appeal but his commander refused to act upon the 
evidence presented.  While the referenced case dealt with a 
failed drug test and not flying, both are similar in that there 
was a clear error that started a process leading to a serious 
negative career action.  In both cases, there is a question of 
whether or not the commander’s decision is an injustice based on 
an initial error that was never corrected.  

The applicant’s complete submission, with attachment, is at 
Exhibit E. 


ADDITIONAL AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

USAF/A3O-AIF recommends denial.  A30-A1F recommends contacting 
AMC for the training syllabus issue.  A3O-AIF can only 
investigate if the FEB was done IAW AFI 11-402; chapter 4 and 
that there was a reason to convene an FEB, which was a failure 
to meet academic training.  A3O-AIF cannot validate the syllabus 
or the evidence during the FEB.  Based on the documentation 
provided, the FEB was conducted IAW AFI 11-402.  

The complete A3O-AIF evaluation is at Exhibit F.

AMC/A3TK states that it must be presumed that once the PRB 
determined the need for an FEB, the FEB was carried out 
appropriately, as noted by the AMC SJA.  

It is of note that without the applicant’s actual training 
records it is impossible to determine the adequacy of his 
training or adherence to any syllabus.  There was an AMC 
approved instructor upgrade course syllabus in effect at the 
time of the applicant’s instructor upgrade course.  The 2006 PIC 
syllabus was approved by AMC/A3 on 23 Oct 06.  It does provide 
for the convening of a PRB if a student receives an overall 
grade of unsatisfactory on three consecutive sorties.  The 
provided copy of the 2006 PIC syllabus references AFI 11-2KC-10, 
KC-10 Aircrew Training,  Volume 1, 25 Oct 06.  The 2005 version 
of that document would have been in effect at the time of the 
syllabus’ publication.  This document declares that students who 
fail to progress will go to a process review (paragraph 1.17).  
The 2009 version, which would have been in effect at the time of 
the applicant’s attendance at PIC largely, says the same thing.  
There is no way to substantiate his claim that he believed he 
should have been allowed to continue in training even after the 
need for a PRB had been determined.

The complete A3TK evaluation is at Exhibit G. 


APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF ADDITIONAL AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

The AMC/A3TK advisory states that there was a syllabus and a PRB 
convened upon three consecutive “unsatisfactory” sorties.  He 
never had three consecutive “unsatisfactory” sorties and 
provides a training matrix showing the dates of every sortie and 
the event accomplished.  His final three sorties were on 19 Feb, 
26 Feb and 3 Mar 10 and only the final sortie is graded 
“unsatisfactory.”  The advisory proves he was unjustly sent to a 
PRB since he did not meet the criteria of three consecutive 
“unsatisfactory” ratings.  There is still no valid justification 
given for the sole PRB.  An error was made in convening the PRB 
and without the sole PRB, there would not have been a decision 
to convene an FEB.  The FTU Chief and the OSS/CC violated AFI 
11-2KC-10 Volume 1 which directs the use of an approved syllabus 
if available.  This oversight has never been explained.

It is clear that he was not treated IAW his approved formal 
training syllabus.  Without this error, he would not have been 
sent to a FEB or disqualified from aviation service.  He asks 
this error be corrected by purging the FEB from all Air Force 
records and that his aviation service be restored effective 
20 May 10.

The applicant’s complete submission, with attachments, 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 an error or injustice to warrant 
removing the FEB from his records, changing his flying record to 
reflect an administrative withdrawal from the KC-10 Pilot 
Instructor Course, rescinding his disqualification from aviation 
service and reinstating his flight status. The applicant 
contends that the PRB was convened in error and without the PRB, 
the FEB, which subsequently led to his permanent 
disqualification from aviation service would not have convened.  
Although three consecutive failures is a reason for the 
convening of a PRB, it is not the only reason.  As noted in the 
2006 KC-10 PIC syllabus, there are several other reasons for the 
convening of a PRB and the applicant has not provided 
substantial evidence to persuade us that the PRB was unjustly 
convened or that the actions taken were inappropriate.  
Therefore, we agree with the opinions and recommendations of the 
Air Force offices of primary responsibility (OPR) 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 the absence of 
evidence to the contrary, we find no basis to recommending 
granting any of the relief sought in this application.  

4.  Additionally, counsel argues that there is precedence for 
over-turning a commander’s decision when there is a clear error 
leading up to the decision and cites AFBCMR Docket Number BC-
2013-01719.  However, every case before this Board is considered 
on its own merit since the circumstances of each case are seldom 
identical.  As pointed out by counsel, the referenced case dealt 
with a failed drug test and not flying.  As such, we find it 
distinguishable and not comparable with the applicant’s 
requests. Therefore, in the absence of evidence that the 
applicant was treated differently than others similarly situated 
we find no equitable basis to grant any of the relief sought in 
this application.

5.  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.   


THE BOARD DETERMINES THAT:

The applicant be notified the evidence presented did not 
demonstrate the existence of material error or injustice; the 
application was denied without a personal appearance; and 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-2014-02210 in Executive Session on 9 Dec 14 under the 
provisions of AFI 36-2603:

	 , Panel Chair
	 , Member
	 , Member

 
The following documentary evidence in AFBCMR Docket Number BC-
2014-02210 was considered:

	Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 12 Jul 13, w/atchs.
	Exhibit B.  Memorandum, USAF/A3O-AIF, dated 5 Jun 14.
	Exhibit C.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 27 Jun 14.
	Exhibit D.  Letter, Applicant’s Counsel, dated 27 Jul 14.
	Exhibit E.  Letter, Applicant’s Counsel, undated, w/atch.
	Exhibit F.  Memorandum, USAF/A3O-AIF, dated 8 Sep 14.
	Exhibit G.  Memorandum, AMC/A3TK, dated 2 Oct 14.
	Exhibit H.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 27 Oct 14.
	Exhibit I.  E-mail, Applicant, dated 25 Nov 14, w/atchs.