RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF:	DOCKET NUMBER:  BC-2002-00844
		INDEX CODE:  115.02
		COUNSEL:  NONE

		HEARING DESIRED:  YES

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

She be reinstated into Specialized Undergraduate Pilot Training (SUPT).

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

She was improperly and unnecessarily eliminated from pilot training.  In her three academic failures, she received a 77.7% (two questions away from passing at 85%), 83.3% (one question away from the passing 85%) and 81.5% (one question away).  Essentially, she was eliminated from pilot training for missing four questions on three tests out of the eight tests she took and out of a total of only 9 tests in the entire course.  When she was initially recommended for elimination, the records erroneously indicated a 74.1 % instead of the 77.7% actual test result for her first failure.  This error was not corrected for the Commander's Review (CR), and this inaccuracy may have inappropriately contributed to the decision to initiate the disenrollment.  It should be noted that when a student fails an exam, a retest is required.  She scored 96.3% and 93.3% on the retests of the first two failures and was not allowed to retest the third.  LAFBI 36-2205, states that a student may be eliminated for failure "to meet proficiency standards of the syllabus in flying, academics, or procedures", however, that statement is vague and does not specify what constitutes academic failure.  

The applicant was unable to find any requirement that a CR be initiated after three failures and she had only one remaining test to complete the rest of her training.  There is no rational basis for her to have not been allowed to retest on this failure and allowed to take her last exam when she was doing so well. She had shown excellent success at retests and she had an above average passing grade. Therefore the decision to eliminate her after three failures, given the minimal questions missed, considering the excellent retest scores and her satisfactory overall academic record, and the fact that there was only one final test required to complete the training, was arbitrary and capricious.  Even if there had been a regulation requiring the initiation of the CR, her record clearly justified another chance.  

She was entered into the Commander's Awareness Program (CAP), a monitoring program designed to ensure academically or procedurally deficient students receive remedial training, after which they can return to the regular curriculum, better able to succeed.  She and her flight commander entered a verbal agreement that she was not to fly on Saturdays, nor was she to fly two sorties on any given day in order to allow more time for academic studies.  On 6 Feb 99 an Instructor Pilot (IP) violated that contract by requiring her to fly on a Saturday.  The agreement was again violated when she was required to both fly and afterward take the navigation test.  An academic exam was considered to be a sortie for training purposes.  That navigation test was the one on which she missed one answer for her third failure.  She completed all subsequent flying sorties satisfactorily, according to the standards.  She was not to be scheduled to perform navigational events in the airplane for several more weeks, yet she was required to take that exam in navigation the same day she was flying.  Her concentration and focus had to switch from one course to the other just minutes before her exam.  She had personal problems which interfered with her ability to study, impacted her performance, and should have received more consideration by the CR.  In addition, the CR made a point of a "personality conflict" with a civilian instructor.  The instructor was upset that she was not using his technique regarding a mathematical computation.  This was on her next to last day of training and had no bearing on her academics because she had no deficiencies on the exam.  

The reviewing authority that recommended her for retention was required to include applicable records and a written summary of the significant facts and rationale used in arriving at the recommendations.  This did not occur.  The absence of these essential comments may very well have been the difference between a positive recommendation and the one that resulted.  Additionally, she had previously been in the CAP for being airsick.  After a student made three successful flights following an airsick episode they were removed.  AETCI 36-2205 states that students who become airsick on four or more pre-solo sorties will be placed on CAP.  This did not occur. She was placed on airsick CAP after only 2 episodes and she successfully continued in her training without further airsick episodes.  The airsickness, a common problem with students early in training, never recurred.  However, after she failed her third academic test and was removed from training, her commander removed the form from her records that indicated she had been cleared off of the airsick CAP and then inappropriately administratively put her back on airsick CAP status, without any justification or any airsick episodes.  

In her paperwork presented to the CR it was stated that she was ranked last, number 30 out of 30 students in her class.  She was actually number 28 out of 30.  While these errors by the CR may be looked at individually as minor, they had a cumulative unfair effect.  Another student in her class also failed three exams at approximately the same time she did. He was allowed to continue in training and currently flies for the Air Force.  A different standard was applied to the male student to allow him to continue in training while a woman, was dismissed on the same record. Two males were allowed to continue in training after academic disenrollment while no women were.  Lt Col K--- stated that she "lacked either the motivation or the ability to grasp the academic material presented".  This was an inappropriate and inaccurate statement which unfairly affected the outcome of the CR and is contradictory to his recommendation letter signed two weeks after her training, stating that she was a highly motivated individual. 

In support of her request, applicant provided her counsel's brief, documentation associated with her elimination from SUPT, an extract from LAFBI 36-2205, and LAFBI 36-2220 and 2205.  Her complete submission, with attachments, is at Exhibit A.

_________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

Applicant was appointed a second lieutenant, Reserve of the Air Force on 27 May 98 and was voluntarily ordered to extended active duty on that same date.  She has been progressively promoted to the grade of captain, having assumed that grade effective and with a date of rank of 27 May 02.

The applicant entered pilot training at Laughlin AFB TX on 14 Oct 1998.  She was entered into the CR process after failing three cumulative academic exams.  After reviewing her training records the Operations Group Commander recommended retention in training; however, wing commander, as the final reviewing authority, recommended elimination for academic deficiency.  She was eliminated from SUPT on 16 Feb 99.

_________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

AETC/DOF recommends denial.  DOF states that there is no cumulative passing average applied in SUPT.  Each exam stands alone with the requirement for a minimum passing score of 85%.  A student failing three exams is put into the CR process.  The number of total exam questions, questions missed, or margin of failure is not considered.  The only application of cumulative average scores is used for computing academic standing for eliminees being considered for navigator training (93% required) and for graduate final ranking and achievement awards.  Three cumulative academic failures is one of four ways the CR may be initiated.  This requirement for minimum academic competence exists in all SUPT syllabuses and has been used as the standard for more than 25 years.  Her CAP training plan was followed as closely as possible with the her best interests and her continued progress in training.  Every effort was made to minimize the number of activities scheduled during the duty day to allow for additional study time.  However, given the number of simulator events, aircraft sorties, and academic hours required in the syllabus, to complete training within the allotted time requires multiple events be accomplished on most days.  Student schedules are developed based on a 12-hour day to ensure timely course completion and maximize training resource utilization.  Students are expected to study when off-duty and to maximize study during the duty day when not scheduled for training events.  Students not scheduled for multiple activities can be expected to fall behind classmates and are often held back for training.  

As the final reviewing authority, the wing commander had access to all of her training records to include her show-cause letter, in which she described her personal circumstances.  There is no evidence to show it was not considered in the final decision to eliminate her from training.  

The applicant construed her training plan as a verbal contract, not subject to change.  It was also her perception that academics would count as sorties and she would not be scheduled for two events.  However, this was a misinterpretation on her part.  The flight commander provided his best approach for her to overcome her academic difficulties.  Every effort was made to provide special treatment for her within the constraints of the syllabus and available training time and resources.  

There is no evidence presented verifying that her records presented in the CR were erroneous.  DOF is unable to make comment of her assertion that a male student with the same academic record was retained while she was eliminated.  The male student's trainings were unavailable.  However, documentation provided by the applicant shows that there were 12 students removed from training for academic deficiency during the tenure of the then assigned wing commander.  Of the 12, 10 were male and 2 were female.  The fact that two male students were subsequently reinstated, but the two females were not, is not indicative of bias or injustice.  It remains that there were eight other male students who were also eliminated for academic deficiencies during this time period.  

Students must prepare for and perform many activities in a single day or they will not be able to complete training.  She had already been held back once for her academic deficiency.  Students cannot be held over indefinitely until they can achieve standards.  This is not effective or efficient use of limited training resources and is not equitable for those students achieving standards within programmed time and syllabus constraints.  

The DOF evaluation is at Exhibit C.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

Applicant states that her first test failure was the result of her exhaustion from running 26.2 miles the day before the exam.  She was determined to run the San Antonio marathon in tribute to her best friend who passed away a couple of weeks before she started pilot training.  Her second and third test failures were related to a combination of stress factors, frustration, sadness, and the bull-headed mentality that she could deal with all things in her life by herself without asking for help.  In addition, her flight commander broke his contract with her not to fly on weekends and to not schedule her to fly on the same day as a major academic test.  Achieving lower that a passing score of three academic tests does not automatically eliminate a student from training.  She explained her circumstances to her flight commander and assured him that her reasons for not doing well on the tests were for personal reasons that affected her concentration.  The thought of not graduating at the top of her class as she had planned had frustrated her and she was determined to complete the course.  The flight commander did not consider her rationale as a valid reason for failing academically.  He told her that the standard was to recommend students for elimination with three academic failures while at the same time he recommended another individual for reinstatement.  

DOF states that the number of total exam questions, questions missed or margin of failure is not considered. The type of question missed is not considered either.  In simple terms, a test does not determine the competency of a pilot but measures individual knowledge and retention, as well as comparison of one student to another.  The 85% standard is not an accurate measurement of how well a student will perform as a pilot.  In SUPT all students begin with academics only, progress to a stage of academics overlapping flying, and end the course with the flying phase.  During the overlap phase the academics and flying do not coincide directly.  Students are required to master a flying skill at the same time study for advance instrument academics that would not be applied until weeks later.  

A common practice in pilot training was for students to review copies of the actual tests in preparation for the test.  The rationale was if everybody did it how could the leadership possibly eliminate everybody from training.  The students who cheated eventually were required to apply their knowledge and skill in the airplane a few weeks later.  Those students grasped the material upon application in the airplane, justified their own conduct and are aviators today.  She opted to not cheat, excelling on a few tests with a score of 100% and ultimately failing a total of three tests.  The words of her squadron commander, who told her that she would never have the ability to understand advanced combat weapons systems like air launched missiles if she could not grasp the basic academics of flying because of her test failures, provided negative reinforcement that had a huge impact on her self confidence. 

Her complete submission is 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 error or injustice that would warrant reinstatement into the SUPT program.  We took notice of the applicant's complete submission in judging the merits of the case; however, we agree with the opinion and recommendation of the Air Force office of primary responsibility and adopt their rationale as the basis for our conclusion that the applicant has not been the victim of an error or injustice.  In cases of this nature, we are not inclined to disturb the judgments of commanding officers absent a strong showing of abuse of discretionary authority.  We have no such showing here.  Evidence has not been presented which would lead us to believe that the appropriate standards or procedures were not applied, or that the applicant was denied any of the rights and privileges she was entitled to.  Therefore, in the absence of persuasive evidence to the contrary, we find no compelling 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 issues 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 AFBCMR Docket Number BC-2002-00844 in Executive Session on 15 Jul 03, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603:

The following documentary evidence was considered:

    Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 20 Feb 02, w.atchs.
    Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
    Exhibit C.  Letter, AETC/DOF, dated 30 May 02, w/atchs.
    Exhibit D.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 3 Jun 02.
    Exhibit E.  Letter, Applicant, dated 30 Apr 03, w/atchs.