RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF:	DOCKET NUMBER:  02-00937
		INDEX CODE:  115.00,128.00

		COUNSEL:  NONE

		HEARING DESIRED: YES

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

1. The ATC Form 126A be expunged from her record so she can compete for a Specialized Undergraduate Pilot Training (SUPT) slot or change the basis of the record to reflect the following:

	  a. The reason for elimination from training be changed from “Flying deficiency” to “Medical deficiency.”

    b. The Finding be changed from “was sufficient for elimination” to “was not sufficient for elimination.”

	 c. The recommendation be changed from “should not be considered for reinstatement in this course at a later date” to “should be considered for reinstatement in this course at a later date.”

2. Reinstatement into phase III of Undergraduate Pilot Training (UPT), with an assignment to NAS Corpus Christi to fly the T-44.

3. Her eight (8) year pilot training commitment be reduced to three (3) years or to be grand-fathered to an eight year active duty service commitment (ADSC).

4. Her aviation service date of 6 June 1995 be changed to reflect the four months of lost flight pay and any other back pay and allowances.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

Her performance in pilot training was affected by a shoulder injury.  After an inadequate amount of time to heal, she was sent back to flying, despite her continued pain.  She was given two options:  eliminate herself or endure the pain.  She chose to endure the pain because quitting was not an option.  She was later eliminated because of the effect the pain had on her flying.  The flight surgeon, who was not qualified in orthopedics, gave Wing leadership advice contrary to that of the recommendation by the attending orthopedic surgeon specialist who was handling her injury.  She has since been advised by an USAF Pilot Physician, that at the time of her elimination, Air Training Command (ATC) (now AETC - Air Education and Training Command) had a policy in affect that would allow a student pilot six (6) months to heal an injury before being eliminated from training.  The current instruction, AETCI 36-2205, allows 12 months.  She was only given two and a half months of healing time on medical hold.  She was not advised of this policy while at UPT and, therefore, received advice contrary to ATC’s policy.  She contends that she was prematurely eliminated from UPT due to a transient medical condition.  If given adequate physical recuperation time she would have been able to complete UPT successfully.

In support of her appeal, the applicant provided a personal statement, AETC/DOFP letter, dated 25 May 2001, Deputy Commander, XXXXX letter, dated 10 October 2001, XX AMDS/SGPF letter, dated 15 August 2001, letter w/atchs from XXXXXX Medical Office, dated 2 October 2001, 612 CPS/DP letter, dated 22 February 2002, AF Form 475 (Education/Training Report), dated 27 February 1995, and ATC Form 126A, Record of Commander’s Review Action, dated 15 February 1995.

The applicant provided a letter from HQ AETC/DOFP which indicates that a medical record review revealed that the applicant had her first T-38 flight on 1 September 1994 but did not reveal the nature of the injury to medical personnel until 20 September 1994.  She began exhibiting difficulty with T-38 operations on 16 September 1994.  A C5288 sortie was conducted on 27 September 1994 followed immediately by a C6289 on 28 September 1994.  Both rides resulted in “U” grades.  She accrued 16.0 hours of T-38 experience during the month of September 1994.  She was placed in Duty Not Including Flying (DNIF) status on 30 September 1994 and a letter written by the flight surgeon to the first Commander Review Board (CRB) stated that the injured right arm may well have contributed to her poor flying performance.  She underwent a number of therapeutic modalities including physical therapy and intra-articular steroid injections.  On 16 December 1994 she returned to flying status despite a recommendation from orthopedic surgery on 13 December 1994 that she remain DNIF for an additional three to nine months.  This reiterated a previous recommendation for extended DNIF by orthopedic surgery on 17 November 1994.  On 6 January 1995 she was found to have substandard visual acuity and stood down until receiving corrective lenses.  She received two review rides for adjustment to glasses but continued to do poorly.  At her second CRB she was eliminated from training with a total of 24.2 hours.

The DOFP letter further stated that the crux of this case is that the member was returned to training by a flight surgeon who did not possess specialty level knowledge of orthopedic surgery in the face of documented advice from an orthopedic surgeon to the contrary.  It is his opinion that this decision adversely affected her ability to complete UPT and contributed to her elimination.  He recommends the applicant be permitted to enter Joint Specialized Undergraduate Pilot Training.

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

_________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

The applicant is currently serving on extended active duty in the grade of captain.

On 14 March 1994 the applicant was enrolled in UPT.

On 12 August 1994 the applicant injured her right wrist and shoulder due to a jet  ski incident.

In October 1994, the applicant went to a Commander Review Board (CRB) and was returned to training.

On 17 February 1995, during the second CRB, the applicant was eliminated from undergraduate pilot training (UPT) due to flying deficiencies and was reclassified as an F-15E Weapons Systems Officer (WSO) assigned to aviation service code 06 (Disqualified-flying requirement terminated).

On 6 June 1995 the applicant was re-enrolled in undergraduate navigator training (UNT) resulting in a new aviation service date of 6 June 1995.

On 19 February 1996, the applicant graduated from Specialized Undergraduate Navigator Training (SUNT) and is currently serving a 6 year ADSC.

_________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

HQ AFPC/DPAOY reviewed the file and indicated that they conducted a complete audit of the applicant’s master personnel record and flight record folder and determined that the applicant should have received flying gate credit for the 340 days spent in UPT.  As such, her aviation service date has been recalculated in accordance with AFI 11-402, paragraph 3.11.1.1.5 and reestablished as 1 July 1994.  This action has been passed to her Host Aviation Resource Management (HARM) office to ensure all aeronautical orders are amended to reflect the correct date.  Upon completion of the amended orders, the applicant’s request for changes to her financial records will be completed automatically via the associated Military Pay Order.  No further action is required.

The evaluation is at Exhibit C.

HQ AETC/SGPS concurs with the applicant’s request for reinstatement in SUPT and her request to have her elimination changed from “Flying deficiency” to “Medical deficiency.”  Her outstanding record as a WSO demonstrates her potential and motivation to enter and complete SUPT.  Noting that her remaining requests are administrative in nature and not medical they defer to the line side.

They indicated that the applicant feels she has been granted an injustice concerning her medical diagnoses, treatment and follow-up.  Based only on the documents submitted for review they can certainly understand the applicant’s concern and reason for the BCMR request.  The AETCI 36-2205, is an administrative line AFI not a medical one.  The input to increase the medical down time during training from XXXX to XXXX months was recently coordinated with and approved by the HQ AETC/SG for implementation and is the current AETC policy.  While they believe her medical well being was paramount to all concerned, better coordination and communication could have been made with and between all parties involved, concerning her injuries, her prognoses and the AETC policy on medical hold versus elimination.

The evaluation is at Exhibit D.

HQ AETC/DOF recommends no change to the applicant’s training record.  They indicated that after being injured, the applicant elected not to seek medical aid because she did not want to fall behind in training.  Upon finally being examined by the Flight Surgeon, she was prescribed over-the-counter pain relievers but continued in training.  Subsequently, she experienced flying problems and was recommended for elimination.  During a required medical evaluation, the Flight Surgeon found the injury might have been affecting her performance.  This exam is required for all students being considered for elimination to ensure students are “medically qualified at the time of any non-medical disenrollment.”  As a result, the applicant was to be reinstated into training following a Medical Hold status to resolve the medical issue.  During this 3-month period, she was treated with pain relievers and physical therapy.  After being told she was being returned to Flying Status, applicant felt she was not ready to resume training.  She asked to be placed in a lower performance aircraft to complete training.  The request to change aircraft was denied - there is no cross-track policy (medical or otherwise to cover this exigency for undergraduate student pilots.  Applicant asserts she was told her options were to be medically eliminated and reapply for training later, or continue training in the T-38 and “learn to fly with pain.”  She again requested a transfer to another training track, but was denied.  When she returned to training, she experienced continuing training problems and was subsequently eliminated for flying deficiencies.  Another medical exam was required to ensure the applicant was medically qualified for flying duty upon disenrollment.  Applicant subsequently was selected for and completed navigator training (required flying medical qualification).  The applicant has since completed five years service as a navigator and Weapons System Officer (WSO) before filing this application.

Applicant’s assertions on Medical Hold policy are correct.  At the time of her elimination, there was a policy allowing up to 6 months in Medical Hold before students would be considered for elimination.  AETC 48-102, Medical Management for Undergraduate Flying Training Students, describes the process where local Flight Surgeons require HQ AETC/SGPA approval to extend students beyond a 3-month Medical Hold status.  Medical Hold status can be expanded to allow up to 12 months.  This is reflected in AETCI 38-102 and AETCI 26-2205, Formal Aircrew Training Administration and Management (used by flight training supervisors and commanders). AETCI states that “students will be eliminated if they become medically disqualified unless the nature of the disqualification is such that it is likely to resolve within 12 months of the initial disqualification.”  Additional policy guidance is contained in AFI 36-2205,  Applying for Flying and Astronaut Training Programs:  “Officers attending UFT who are eliminated for short-term medical reasons (as determined by the eliminating authority) will be reentered in the same UFT program when they medically re-qualify.”  The paragraph goes on to say (underline added):  “Those officers who are eliminated for medical reasons of a long-term (1 year or more), may reapply for UFT board consideration when they are medically qualified.  They must meet all age and eligibility criteria and compete for the first UFT selection board after being medically qualified.”

After the applicant was injured she elected not to reveal or discuss her situation with medical authorities for 37 days.  It is reasonable to assume an injury as serious as the one portrayed, would normally require immediate medical attention.  However, responsibility for this decision lies with the applicant.  The applicant continued in training to the point she was in the elimination process when the injury surfaced as an issue.  Then following the 3-month Medical Hold, the Flight Surgeon returned the applicant to flying status.  Subjectively, flight line supervisors may have been reluctant to believe the injury was in fact interfering with the applicant’s ability to fly.  It is likely, the injury was perceived as a “distraction” to compensate for her flying difficulties.  Applicant had repeated medical exams and was qualified for flying duty at the time of her elimination from training for a flying deficiency.

Applicant has waited five years before making the submission to the AFBCMR.  Applying AFI 35-2205 policy standards to this case renders the applicant ineligible for UFT selection as she exceeds maximum age and Total Active Federal Commissioned Service (TAFSC) requirements.

Applicant’s request to be reinstated into the T-44 advanced training track is not supportable.  Although she is a current F-15E WSO, placing her directly into an advanced track after a five year break-in-training would place her at a conspicuous disadvantage, and jeopardize chances for successful completion.

There is no basis provided by the applicant to support requested changes to backpay and allowances, pilot training commitment, and aviation service date.  

However, if the decision is to grant the applicant’s request, the AETC From 126A should be changed to show the applicant “may be considered for reinstatement at a later date.”  

If a decision is made to reenter the applicant in training, recommend the applicant complete the entire year long course and compete for advanced track selection based on merit.  Additionally, she will require both an age and TAFSC waivers IAW AFI 36-2205, Applying for Flying and Astronaut Training Programs.

Other requests for pay, service commitment, and aviation service date changes requires further policy determinations by offices within HQ USAF.

The evaluation, with attachments, is at Exhibit E.

HQ AFPC/DPSFO recommends denial.  They indicated that the applicant states “My 8 year pilot training commitment be reduced to 3 years since I have already served 5 years as a rated officer.  Should this not be possible, I request to be grand-fathered to an 8 year ADSC, since that was the policy in effect when I would have graduated from UPT."  The applicant graduated from UNT on 19 February 1996 and is currently serving a 6-year ADSC for that training in accordance with AFI 36-2107, (Active Duty Service Commitments and Specified Period of Time Contracts (SPTC), Table 1.4, Rule 2, 6 July 1994 (version in effect at the time).  Her rated service as a WSO (5 years) has no bearing on her UPT commitment if applicant is reinstated.  These are separate training issues with different ADSCs (6 years for UNT and 10 years for JSUPT).  In accordance with AFI 36-2107, (Active Duty Service Commitments), IC 2001, Table 1.1, Rule 10, JSUPT graduates now incur a 10-year ADSC.  Note 1 states:  “The ADSC will be served upon graduation and will run concurrently with any other ADSC.”  If applicant is reinstated into UPT at a future date, there is no provision in the AFI to reduce her ADSC to 3 years or to “grandfather” to 8 years.

Air Force members are still expected to serve the appropriate term of active service to ensure the Air Force and the taxpayers receive an appropriate return for their investment in training and education.  UPT ADSC is served upon graduating from training.  Current guidance does not provide for the acceptance of her 5 years of rated service as WSO to be applied towards any future UPT commitment.  Additionally, there is no allowance for a “grandfather clause.”  The applicant has not provided sufficient justification to support her request.

The evaluation is at Exhibit F.

HQ AFPC/DPAO indicated that AETC Form 126A (Record of Commander’s Review Action) documents the history on an individual, and in this case, the elimination from pilot training.  They do not support the elimination of the AETC Form 126A from the file.  The applicant also requested an age waiver if required.  At the time of initial entry into pilot training, the applicant met the age requirements.  USAF/DP does not normally require the member to obtain an age waiver when he or she is reinstated into training.  If an age waiver is required, they support the request.  However, the final approval for age waivers for entry into SUPT rests with HQ AF/CC.

The evaluation is at Exhibit G.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

The applicant reviewed the evaluation and indicated that this injustice occurred when she was placed back on flying status before fully recuperating from a shoulder injury.  Her premature return to the cockpit directly affected her performance and led to her elimination from UPT.  Had she been given adequate time to heal, she would have completed UPT successfully.  No action was taken earlier because she did not know that there was a recourse for the decisions made.  Then as a second lieutenant, she trusted the guidance she received from her supervisors was full and complete.  She was not made aware of all her options, including the AFBCMR.

She is requesting reinstatement into phase III because she has already successfully completed Phase I (academics) and Phase II (T-37 training).  Her goal has always been to be a C-130 pilot and placing her in a T-44 or T-1 for Phase III in JSUPT would allow her the opportunity to compete towards that goal.  Selecting a C-130 out of the T-38 track (Fighters/Bombers only) is no longer an option as it had been when she went through UPT in 1995.

She’s requesting 5 years of rated flying as a Weapons System Officer be counted towards her rated UPT commitment because, had the injustice not occurred, she would have completed 7 of the 8 years of her rated service commitment by now.

After being eliminated, her Aviation Career Incentive Pay (flight pay) was interrupted for four months while waiting for her Undergraduate Navigator Training class to begin.  If she had been placed on medical hold for 6 months instead of being eliminated, per AETC policy, this interruption would not have occurred.  There would not have been a break in aviation service.

Applicant’s complete response, with attachment, 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.	 Sufficient relevant evidence has been presented to demonstrate the existence of an error or an injustice warranting partial relief.   Essentially, the applicant contends that she was given insufficient time on Medical Hold in order for injuries to her shoulder and wrist to heal.  As a result, she was prematurely eliminated from UPT due to a transient medical condition.  Had she been given sufficient time to recuperate, she would have successfully completed UPT.  We note that the applicant injured herself in mid-August 1994, however, apparently elected not to seek any type of medical attention until 20 September 1994, and that was for a stomach virus.  Apparently the pain she continued to experience affected her flying to the extent that she was sent to a review board.  As a result, she was seen by the flight surgeon on 30 September 1994, nearly 6 weeks after the incident.  It was at that time she commenced treatment for the injury, was reinstated to training, and placed on medical hold.  She remained on medical hold until sometime in January 1995 when she was returned to flying status.  Unfortunately, she continued to experience pain that ultimately affected her flying ability resulting in her elimination from UPT.  The Chief, Physical Standards Branch points out that better communication between all parties involved could have been made regarding the AETC policy on medical hold versus elimination.  We note that during the time period in question, the applicant could have remained on medical hold up to six months.  However, based upon the documentation submitted, we find no evidence that the applicant requested to remain on medical hold for the maximum amount of time and was denied.  On the other hand, we note the statement from the Pilot Physician who indicates that the applicant was returned to flying status by a flight surgeon who did not specialize in orthopedic surgery, in the face of documented advice from the orthopedic surgeon treating the applicant.  In view of the foregoing, we are of the opinion that both the applicant and the Air Force can share in the responsibility for her elimination from training.  In this respect, the applicant did not seek out treatment immediately for fear of being eliminated from training and the Air Force apparently returned her to training before she had an opportunity to fully heal.  Interestingly, we note the applicant was eliminated from UPT in February 1995 but did not submit this appeal until February 2002, seven years after the incidents in question.  Regardless, in view of the totality of the circumstances of this case, we believe that some relief is warranted in this case.  We are not inclined to return her to Phase III of UPT considering the length of time she has been removed from training.  The decision regarding whether she should be reinstated to UPT and where that training is accomplished is best left to the Air Force.  However, we believe she should be given the opportunity to apply for reinstatement to pilot training.  Whether or not she is successful in her quest for reinstatement to UPT will be dependent on the needs of the Air Force.  Therefore, we recommend her records be corrected as indicated below.

4.	 With regard to the applicant’s request regarding her aviation service date, we note that her records have apparently been corrected to reflect an aviation service date of 1 July 1994, in accordance with the governing directives thereby giving her flying gate credit for the period of time she was in UPT.  She has not established to our satisfaction that this date is in error or unjust and that she should be awarded an aviation service date of 5 March 1994, the date she originally entered UPT.  She believes that she should have this date on the basis that had she been placed on medical hold for six months, she would not have had a break in aviation service.  As noted above, the Board believes that she has to share in the responsibility for her medical condition and are not persuaded that any further correction is warranted.  Therefore, in the absence of evidence to the contrary, we find no compelling basis to recommend granting this portion of the request.

5.	 Lastly, with respect to her request for a reduction of her ADSC should she successfully complete UPT, we note that applicant has requested that she either be grandfathered to the ADSC which was in effect when she originally entered UPT (eight years) or that the five years she has served as a Weapons Systems Officer be counted toward that eight year commitment, thereby only serving three years upon successful completion of UPT.  It is our opinion that the current 10-year ADSC should not be curtailed, should she graduate from UPT.  Should she be successful, we believe it is appropriate that she serve her full UPT commitment upon graduation.  Therefore, we agree with the opinion and recommendation of the Air Force and adopt their rationale as the basis for our conclusion that the applicant has not been the victim of an error or injustice.  As such, in the absence of evidence to the contrary, we find no compelling basis to recommend granting the relief sought in this application.  

_________________________________________________________________

THE BOARD RECOMMENDS THAT:

The pertinent military records of the Department of the Air Force relating to APPLICANT, be corrected to show that ATC Form 126A, dated 17 February 1995, be amended to reflect the following:

	a. Section I. Initiating Authority, reflect the reason for elimination from training was “Medical Deficiency” rather than “Flying Deficiency.”

    b. Section III. Reviewing Authority Recommendation, reflect under the Finding heading that the student’s deficiency “was not sufficient for elimination” rather than “was sufficient for elimination.”

	c. Section III. Reviewing Authority Recommendation, reflect under the Recommendation heading that the student should “be considered for reinstatement in this course at a later date” rather than “not be considered for reinstatement in this course at a later date.”

_________________________________________________________________

The following members of the Board considered AFBCMR Docket Number 02-00937 in Executive Session on 7 November 2002, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603:

		Mr. Wayne R. Gracie, Panel Chair
		Mr. James W. Russell III, Member
		Mr. Thomas J. Topolski, Jr., Member

All members voted to correct the records, as recommended.  The following documentary evidence was considered:

   Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 11 February 2002, w/atchs.
   Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
   Exhibit C.  Letter, AFPC/DPAOY, undated.
   Exhibit D.  Letter, AETC/SGPS, dated 15 April 2002.
   Exhibit E.  Letter, AETC/DOF, dated 3 July 2002, w/atchs.
   Exhibit F.  Letter, AFPC/DPSFO, dated 3 September 2002.
   Exhibit G.  Letter, AFPC/DPAO, 13 September 2002.
   Exhibit H.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 20 September 2002.
   Exhibit I.  Letter, Applicant, dated 15 October 2002, w/atch.

			

AFBCMR 02-00937

MEMORANDUM FOR THE CHIEF OF STAFF

	Having received and considered the recommendation of the Air Force Board for Correction of Military Records and under the authority of Section 1552, Title 10, United States Code (70A Stat 116), it is directed that:

	The pertinent military records of the Department of the Air Force relating to   , be corrected to show that ATC Form 126A, dated 17 February 1995, be, and hereby is, amended to reflect the following:

		a. Section I. Initiating Authority, reflect the reason for elimination from training was “Medical Deficiency” rather than “Flying Deficiency.”

    	b. Section III. Reviewing Authority Recommendation, reflect under the Finding heading that the student’s deficiency “was not sufficient for elimination” rather than “was sufficient for elimination.”

		c. Section III. Reviewing Authority Recommendation, reflect under the Recommendation heading that the student should “be considered for reinstatement in this course at a later date” rather than “not be considered for reinstatement in this course at a later date.”