RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF:	DOCKET NUMBERS:  02-01065
		INDEX CODE 115.02
		COUNSEL:  None

	 	HEARING DESIRED:  Yes

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

He be reinstated into Specialized Undergraduate Pilot Training (SUPT) at a base other than Vance AFB, OK.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

He admits his error but his elimination from pilot training was excessive punishment for his actions. Taking pictures on solo flights was no secret and nobody even hinted at it being against the rules. His violation of an Air Force instruction was not an act of willful insubordination but rather a mix of misguided enthusiasm, youthful inexperience and inadequate training. Given his above-average performance in flying training, the dynamic circumstances of the incident and the ambiguity of instruction with regard to his infraction, he feels he deserves a second chance to attend SUPT. He’s learned a valuable lesson and seeks an opportunity to apply what he’s learned.

A pilot who was a student with the applicant at Vance AFB provides a supporting statement, indicating that the severe consequences of taking photos while flying solo was not sufficiently briefed or understood.  The applicant also provides an unsigned copy of a letter from his former senior ranking officer (SRO) to the flight training wing commander.  

The applicant’s complete submission, with 5 attachments, is at Exhibit A.

_________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

The Air Education and Training Command (AETC) supplement to AFI 11-202, Volume 3, General Flight Rules, Section 2.5.1.2.2., prohibits the use of cameras or video records in single-seat aircraft. The use of cameras or video records in the cockpit of other AETC or Air National Guard (ANG) aircraft must be approved by the Operations Group Commander (OG/CC).  The individual using the camera or video recorder will not actively control the aircraft.

AETCI 36-2205, Formal Aircrew Training Administration and Management, Section 5.7.2., states that students will be eliminated if they demonstrate improper conduct or attitude or lack of responsibility toward assigned duties or obligations.

On 7 May 99, the applicant was commissioned a 2nd lieutenant in the Air Force Reserves and was ordered on extended active duty on 1 Aug 99. He entered pilot training at Vance AFB, OK, on 29 Feb 00, and progressed normally.  On 31 May 00, he was scheduled for a solo T-37 flight.  Upon completion of the solo sortie, a maintenance crew chief found a camera case in the T-37 aircraft flown by the applicant. When confronted by his Flight Commander and Squadron Assistant Operation Officer, the applicant admitted he used a camera on the solo sortie. He relayed to his supervisors there were other students who had violated the same rule and provided two names.  

On 5 Jun 00, the 33rd Flying Training Squadron commander recommended the applicant be disenrolled from SUPT, not be considered for reinstatement at a later date, and not be considered for undergraduate navigator training. The reason was the applicant had knowingly violated governing directives by using a camera aboard an AETC aircraft without OG/CC approval and for actively controlling the aircraft while using the camera. The applicant was subsequently eliminated from training effective 13 Jun 00, as were the other two individuals.

_________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

HQ AETC/DOF finds the applicant’s arguments without merit. The applicant willfully violated flying instructions and freely admits to this fact. At the same time, he has attempted to displace responsibility for his act. They cannot excuse the alleged remarks of an instructor or any cavalier attitude toward flying instructions.  While there may be some time-honored traditions associated with the initial solo event in an aircraft (such as the ‘dunking’ referenced by the applicant), there is not a customary, solo in-flight photograph—this would constitute a wholesale disregard of flying instructions. The applicant’s admitted inability to distinguish advertising images of pilots flying aircraft from the reality and responsibility of being a professional military aviator is disturbing. Denial is recommended.

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

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

The applicant asserts the only instruction he had regarding cameras was the instructor’s misleading statement on the first day of class. The instructor did not indicate this was mandated by Air Force instruction, which at the time of the incident he had not completely read. He was not informed of his right to remain silent or to legal counsel until a few days later. He felt forced to self-incriminate. He believes cameras on solo flights are a rite of passage and he describes other traditions in the SUPT world that are not officially recognized. He includes some email regarding photos taken from web sites. He found nothing to indicate a professional photographer took the photos. He was influenced by such photos, as was their intent, and he wanted to have a similar photo of himself. He believes he has the qualities to be a responsible and professional military aviator.

In a separate letter, the applicant forwarded two unsigned copies of memos from his former SRO, one of which was provided earlier with his DD Form 149 (Exhibit A).

Complete copies of applicant’s responses, with attachments, are 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. After a thorough review of the evidence of record and the applicant’s submission, we are not persuaded that he should be reinstated into SUPT. The applicant’s contentions are duly noted, as were the two unsigned memos from his former SRO. However, we do not find these assertions, in and by themselves, sufficiently persuasive to override the rationale provided by the Air Force. The AETC supplement regarding use of cameras is clear; the applicant admits he had not read it at the time of the incident. According to the applicant, the instructor said, “Don’t take cameras on solo flights, and if you do, don’t get caught.” While the instructor’s demeanor may have seemed cavalier to the applicant, the content of the statement was clearly a prohibition and a warning, which the applicant chose to ignore. His disenrollment for this violation may appear severe; however, he has not demonstrated that it was unfair or in error. One cannot ignore the fact that the applicant was an inexperienced pilot on his first solo flight and the possibility of a mishap occurring while he was preoccupied with taking pictures was very real. We therefore adopt the rationale expressed as the basis for our decision that the applicant has failed to sustain his burden of having suffered either an error or an injustice. In view of the above and absent persuasive evidence to the contrary, we conclude this appeal should be denied.  

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 6 August 2002 under the provisions of AFI 36-2603:

The following documentary evidence relating to AFBCMR Docket Number 02-01065 was considered:

   Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 22 Mar 02, w/atchs.
   Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
   Exhibit C.  Letter, HQ AETC, dated 3 May 02, w/atchs.
   Exhibit D.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 10 May 02.
   Exhibit D.  Letter, Applicant, dated 4 Jun 02, w/atch.