RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF:	DOCKET NUMBER:  01-02617
		INDEX CODE:  100.07

		COUNSEL:  NONE

		HEARING DESIRED:  YES

________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

1.  His T-41 flight training record be expunged to reestablish his eligibility for Undergraduate Flying Training (UFT).

2.  He be reinstated to the Undergraduate Flight Training (UFT).

________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

During his elimination process from Pilot Indoctrination Program (PIP) T-41, numerous administrative errors were committed:  Medical evaluation was not correct, disclosure of the long term repercussions from elimination were not explained in detail to him nor to his commander; his records reflected viable UFT candidate at the academy and at Randolph; counseling by legal, Air Officer Commander, group commander was not offered.

In support of the appeal, applicant submits a personal statement and supporting documentation associated with the issues raised in his contentions.  Applicant's complete submission, with attachments, is attached at Exhibit A.

________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

Applicant was a cadet at the United Stated Air Force Academy (USAFA) from 1990-1994.  As part of the Academy curriculum, the applicant was enrolled in the T-41 Pilot Indoctrination Program (PIP) in January 1993.  Applicant was eliminated from PIP in April 1993 for flying training deficiencies (failure to solo within syllabus constraints).

On 1 June 1994, the applicant was appointed a second lieutenant in the Regular Air Force at the age of 25 (DOB: 1 January 1969).  He entered active duty on that same date.  Since his entry on active duty, he has been progressively promoted to the grade of captain, effective and with a date of rank of 1 June 1998.  He has received six Officer Performance Reports (OPRs) in which he was rated “Meets Standards.”  

The remaining relevant facts pertaining to this application, extracted from the applicant’s military records, are contained in the letter prepared by the appropriate office of the Air Force at Exhibit C.

________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

AETC/DOF summarized the applicant’s flying training and stated that records provided by applicant show he received prescription for aviation spectacles.  Further record review revealed just prior to starting T-41 flight training in January 1993, the applicant was seen by the USAFA Chief of Optometry Services.  This preflight training review included the stamped notation, “GLASSES WILL BE WORN WHILE PERFORMING THOSE DUTIES REQUIRING CORRECTIVE VISUAL ACUITY TO INCLUDE FLYING."  It was not until the applicant experienced flying problems that the issue of eyewear surfaced.  From the operations and training perspective, it is incumbent on aircrew members to ensure they fly with proper equipment, to include prescription eyewear.  DOF agrees that the applicant should have been wearing glasses during any flying training program.  However, for unknown reasons, the applicant elected to fly without prescribed glasses until late in his T-41 training.

In reference to the applicant stating that the captain was not experienced enough to perform as his instructor, DOF indicated that each year AETC retains 120 graduates of Specialized Undergraduate Pilot Training (SUPT) as First-Assignment Instructor Pilots.  Following graduation from pilot training, these young pilots complete Pilot Instructor Training and arrive back at SUPT bases to fly with students with less than two years of flying experience.  These first-assignment instructors make up more than 1/3 of the instructor force and are highly regarded for their flight skills, instruction, and ability to relate to student pilots.  They further state that every effort is made to limit the number of instructors a student flies with early in training.  This is done to ensure students receive consistent instruction and feedback to reinforce learning.  At the same time, continuity in regards to training events is also a priority.  Skills learned by student pilots are fragile and perishable.  Supervisors must weigh the benefits of instructor continuity vice student training continuity when managing daily schedules and instructor assignments.  The applicant’s instructor was current and qualified in the T-41 aircraft.  Therefore, DOF indicated that, other than the applicant’s assertion, there is no evidence to show the instructor was not experienced enough to help the applicant overcome his performance deficiencies.

As to the applicant’s assertion he was experiencing personal problems affecting his performance during T-41 PIP, DOF indicated that a review of his records reveals on six (6) separate occasions he was formerly counseled for his continued flying deficiencies.  This is standard practice in all USAF undergraduate flying training programs.  It is also standard practice to ensure there are no outside factors affecting performance.  This is included as an item on the USAFA Student Activity Record (USAFA Form 0-1028).  The six counseling sessions reflect the applicant did not tell supervisors he was experiencing outside factors affecting his performance.  As a result of continued poor performance, the applicant was placed in the Commander’s review process to determine whether cadets should be eliminated or reinstated in training.  It is standard USAFA (and AETC) practice to allow the student to write a “show cause letter” identifying any factors affecting training.  According to existing records, the applicant did not submit a letter identifying any issues.  If such conditions existed, for unknown reasons the applicant elected not to tell supervisors about outside factors affecting his performance.

In reference to the applicant stating that long-term repercussions of elimination from a formal flying course were not explained, they state from the record, there was a one-hour, Cadet Wing Operations Brief (Unit P0101), which covers course objectives and policies to include procedures for removal from training and ramifications for future Undergraduate Flying Training.  The applicant’s record shows P0101 was completed on 5 January 1993.  On the applicant’s Commander’s Review Record it clearly states the student should be disenrolled from training and should not be considered for reinstatement at a later date. If there was any question as to the clarity of this recommendation, there is nothing in the record to show the applicant surfaced his uncertainty until the AFBCMR application.

In reference to the applicant stating that record of performance since his elimination indicates he is a viable UFT candidate, DOF indicated that AFI 36-2205, Applying for Flying and Astronaut Training Programs, Section 1.1, Application Requirements, Figure 1.1, Ineligibility Criteria for Specialized Undergraduate Flying Training, provides that “Individuals eliminated from any flying training course to include UFT, the USAF Enhance Flight Screening Program (EFSP), the Pilot Indoctrination Program (PIP), Flight Instruction Program (FIP) and Introductory Flying Training (IFT) conducted by or for the Armed Forces of the United States…”

In summary, the applicant was given an equal opportunity to complete pilot training, but the responsibility for failure to complete lies with the individual.  Therefore, they recommend denial of applicant’s request.

A complete copy of the evaluation, with attachment, is attached at Exhibit C.

________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

Applicant reviewed the Air Force evaluation and states that prescription eyewear was issued to him.  He did bring the prescription eyewear with him to training, however, did not wear the eyeglasses nor did his instructor direct him to wear his glasses during training.  His instructor was aware of his DD 171, however, for reasons unknown to him, he was not instructed to wear glasses.

He is not contesting the flying skills of his T-41 Instructor Pilot (IP), but based on personal dealings with him, he did not attempt to offer nor render proper counseling.

He tried informally to approach his IP.  To the best of his knowledge, his AOC and he did submit a “show cause letter” to the 34th Operations Support Squadron, but the sentiment at the Academy was that of elimination due to the pilot cut backs in the mid-90s.

When he applied for Undergraduate Flying Training (UFT) in 1995, he stated on the AF 215 and he informed his chain of command that he had been eliminated from the T-41 in 1994.  Not once was he informed of his ineligibility for reapplying at a later date.  For this reason, he continued to seek a UFT slot from the Air Force and later was accepted into Naval Aviation.  Even his Air Officer Commander (AOC) at the Academy who had undergone extensive training was unaware of the long-term elimination repercussion.  During their counseling sessions (where the chain of command communicated with the flying squadron) they were both under the impression that he would be eligible in the future for UFT.

Since his commission into the Air Force, his experience has been in Aircrew training.  To include, Familiarization rides in T-38, F-16, UH-60 aircraft, numerous simulators, and as a training subject at the research lab at Brooks AFB, TX.  His argument is that he has 8 years of “hands on” experience and understanding as a non-rated officer, which will prove beneficial in UFT.

He has served his country diligently and faithfully for the past 8 years and will continue to serve until his services can no longer be rendered.  His dedication is pure to the Armed Forces, which is evident by his outstanding record as an Air Force officer.  After the 11 September, he volunteered (November 2001 to March 2002) to deploy to the Middle East to support Operations SOUTHERN WATCH and ENDURING FREEDOM combating terrorism.  He respectfully requests that his package be looked at favorably to include reinstatement into UFT, and his USAFA T-41 records be expunged without having to reapply in accordance with AFI 36-2205 due to his selection into Naval Aviation.  He states, however, if the board looks favorably on his package, but requires that he reapply for UFT, he will continue to reapply via the AF 215 and seek the required waivers.  His dedication to our nation has been a top priority for him and he wishes to further augment our force as a combatant aviator.  He states that our pilot retention is at critical minimal manning and every additional person that enters into the aviation career field further increases our nation’s capabilities.

A copy of applicant’s response, with attachments, is attached at Exhibit E.

________________________________________________________________

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 reviewing the evidence of record, the majority of the Board is not persuaded that the relief requested should be approved.  The majority finds that the comments provided by the Air Force accurately addresses applicant’s contentions.  The majority notes that at no time during his flying training did the applicant indicate that he had personal problems.  In regard to applicant’s contention that the instructor was inexperience, the majority finds that the instructor in question had completed all requirements to become an instructor and was current and qualified in the T-41 aircraft.  The majority also does not understand the applicant’s failure to wear his glasses while in training which was clearly not the fault of the Air Force.  In view of the above, the majority is in agreement with the comments and recommendations of the Air Force and finds no basis upon which to recommend favorable action on 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(s) 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 this application in Executive Session on 19 November 2002, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603:
                Panel Chair
				Member
				Member

By a majority vote, the Board recommended denial of the application.  Ms XXXXX voted to correct the records and has submitted a Minority Report which is attached at Exhibit F.  The following documentary evidence was considered:

	Exhibit A.	DD Form 149, dated 14 Sep 01, w/atchs.
	Exhibit B.	Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
	Exhibit C.	Letter, AETC/DOF, dated 2 Jan 02, w/atch.
	Exhibit D.	Letter, AFBCMR, dated 11 Jan 02.
	Exhibit E.	Applicant’s Letter, dated 12 Jun 02, w/atch.
	Exhibit F.	Minority Report.

					

MEMORANDUM FOR THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS (AFBCMR)
 
SUBJECT:  Minority Report on AFBCMR Case of 

	I have carefully considered all the circumstances of this case and feel constrained to disagree with the determination of the majority of the panel that the applicant should be denied an opportunity to be considered for flying training.
 
	While I agree with the majority that the applicant could have provided more persuasive evidence, he has established, in my opinion, that due to unusual circumstances he was denied a fair opportunity to complete flight training at the academy.  In this respect, the applicant should have flown with his prescribed glasses; on the other hand, the Air Force instructor should not have allowed him to fly without glasses since the USAFA Chief of Optometry Services just prior to his training had determine that glasses would be worn while performing training.  I also note that the applicant had personal problems during the period in question and these problems could have hindered his changes of completing flying training.  I also note that it was never discussed or apparent to the applicant that this failure precluded future opportunities for flight training in the Air Force.
 
	I agree with the majority of the Board that applicant should not be reinstated in flight training through the correction of records process; however, I believe the policy stating that his prior failure of flight training should be waived so that he can be given the opportunity to be considered for Undergraduate Flight Training.

 

AFBCMR 01-02617

MEMORANDUM FOR THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, AIR FORCE BOARD 
			FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS (AFBCMR)

SUBJECT:  AFBCMR Application of 

	I have carefully reviewed the evidence of record and the recommendation of the Board members.  A majority found that applicant had not provided substantial evidence of error or injustice and recommended the case be denied.  I concur with that finding and their conclusion that relief is not warranted.  Accordingly, I accept their recommendation that the application be denied.

	Please advise the applicant accordingly.