RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF:	DOCKET NUMBER:  02-01818
		INDEX CODE:  135.00, 102.00
		COUNSEL:  NONE
		HEARING DESIRED:  YES

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS:

1.  He regain his Undergraduate Pilot Training (UPT) slot at NAS Corpus Christi, and be given 10 warm-up flights in the T-34 and then placed in the T-44 track located at the same base.

2.  His military record be cleansed of his Officer Performance Reports/Education/Training Reports from Vance AFB and any others between the time he left NAS Whiting Field until his return to UPT.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

A Military Equal Opportunity (MEO) investigation was done concerning sexual harassment, hostile work environment, and Quid Pro Quo aspects with all allegations being substantiated.  These actions have no place in a professional training environment, much less in the United States Air Force.  They go against everything they are taught as officers in Officer Training School, Squadron Officer School, and every command he has been in until Vance AFB.  His requests are fair and equitable considering the fact that it has been proven that Vance AFB presented a hostile work environment creating a situation in which he found impossible to perform his duties as a student.  

He waited until he left Vance AFB before submitting these allegations because of fear of retailiation and reprisal.  He was told that you never question the judgment of an instructor pilot.  The Flight Commander has so much influence that he can actually take a student that is ranked first in his class in flying and academics and drop him to last or near last based simply on his opinion of the individual.  He also believed his allegation would not be investigated but merely hidden or swept under the rug and never to be corrected.  

He attended Joint Specialized Undergraduate Navigator Training at Naval Air Station Pensacola.  He earned his Electronic Warfare Officer rating and wings garnering the Honor Graduate position.  He was then selected for Special Operations and the challenging MC-130H Combat Talon II, the elite Special Operations infiltration platform.  While at the Combat Talon II school he earned his private pilot’s license in far less than average time earning accolades from his flight instructors, as well as the FAA examiner.  After completing the Replacement Training Unit, he reported to his first assignment at Kadena AFB where he was selected for UPT.  

While at JSUPT he achieved many accomplishments and garnered many accolades from his peers, instructors, and chain of command.  These included being ranked number one in both academics and flying for his class, being selected student of the month, Distinguished Graduate and being selected for the Commodore’s list.  While at NAS Whiting Field he heard from other Air Force students that traditionally you give your instructor a dollar for your first ride.  Wanting to keep an Air Force tradition alive, he purchased a silver dollar and wrote both his and his instructor’s name on it.  This was his perception of the traditional dollar.  Due to his well above average flying and academic performance at NAS Whiting Field, he was tracked to the demanding T-38 fighter/bomber track of UPT.

As a student at Vance AFB, OK from October 2000 until May 2001, he was the victim of sexual harassment, hazing, and abuse of authority.  He was specifically told to make a pornographic dollar bill before he would be allowed to solo.  He was advised that it was tradition to create a dollar bill with an Air Force theme, consisting of jet pictures and maybe both the student and instructor’s names on the front of the dollar.  The back of the dollar should be adorned with pornographic pictures; the more hardcore pornographic the better.  He was then showed some of the dollars that the instructor had received from students in the past.  The instructor kept these dollars on his desk covered by a sheet of glass to protect them.  During the course of the first four to six weeks of T-38 training, they were told multiple times by the G Flight Commander that the dollar bills would be turned in before their solo flights, thus holding a Quid Pro Quo over your head involving sexually explicit material.  The severity and the nature of the pornography that was displayed in the kegerator (a refrigerator reconfigured for the sole purpose of distributing keged beer where pornography was posted on the door), and the pornographic dollar bills, were very explicit and what the MEO considered severe.  

He initially took his complaint to the Inspector General at Vance AFB and was told that he wouldn’t have a leg to stand on.  This statement was made before the IG saw any evidence.  He quickly realized that the IG was protecting his own and that he would get nowhere.  He made a decision not to approach his squadron commander since he, at best, never noticed any of the pornography located all over the flight rooms, didn’t notice the large kegerators located in some of the flight rooms containing pornographic pictures, didn’t know about the dollar tradition or the fact that students were being forced to provide pornographic dollar bills, or at worst had knowledge of these actions and did nothing about them.  He then attempted three separate meetings with the Wing Commander who had no time to see him and was referred to the Vice Wing Commander.  The Vice Wing Commander informed him that he had already made the determination to eliminate him from training.  On the third meeting with the Vice Wing Commander, he wished him luck in his quest to be reinstated to pilot training and would not support the request.  He believed he had exhausted every avenue that was available to him at Vance AFB and in the AETC command channels.  Since leaving Vance AFB he has searched for the proper way to handle this situation.  The effects of this type of environment had negative effects on him and his family.  His wife witnessed the pornography, the hazing, and the abuses of authority.  She watched him change from being a very outgoing person, a competent and extremely capable aviator who loved flying and loved going to work everyday into a person who was a little more withdrawn everyday and dreaded going to flight school.  Upon his return to the Special Operations community and in a professional environment, he has reestablished his outstanding track record.  

He is an officer in the United States Air Force having taken an oath of office and sworn to uphold the legal orders, laws, and directives of those appointed over him.  He realizes that his career may be over by coming forward with this information; however, he understands the Whistleblowers Protection Act and how it can protect him.  He did not choose to be placed in this situation.  The instructors, flight commander and the chain of command at Vance AFB chose this situation for him.

In support of his request, the applicant submits a personal statement, a copy of the Equal Opportunity and Treatment (EOT) Complaint Clarification, FOIA requests dated 4 and 10 April 2002 respectively, a copy of an MFR from the 352 Flight Surgeon, copies of pornographic dollars, copies of his OPRs and Training Reports covering the period 12 June 2001 through 13 February 1997; copies of Memoranda for Record regarding Air Force Policy on Hazing; a copy of a Discrimination and Sexual Harassment flowchart and a copy of the Military Commander and the Law reference hazing.  The applicant’s complete submission, with attachments, is at Exhibit A.

_________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

Information extracted from the Military Personnel Data System (MilPDS) indicates that on 27 November 1995, the applicant was appointed a second lieutenant, Reserve of the Air Force and was voluntarily ordered to extended active duty effective 15 March 1996.  He is currently serving on active duty in the grade of captain, with a date of rank and an effective date of 15 March 2000.  The applicant is currently serving at Mildenhall, UK.

The applicant’s record contains two AF Forms 707B, Officer Performance Reports (OPRs) beginning with the rating period 6 February 1998 and ending 5 February 2000 with overall ratings of “Meets Standards.”  Before and during these rating periods, the applicant received five AF Forms 475, Education/Training Records, documenting his completion of the Primary and Intermedicate SN/NFO Training; Electronic Warfare Officer Training; Electronic Warfare Officer Mission Qualification; Joint Primary Flight Training; and Squadron Officer School (Resident Course).  He received one AF Form 475 dated 14 June 2001 to document his elimination from Specialized Undergraduate Pilot Training (SUPT) due to flying deficiencies.  

A Commander Directed Report of Investigation (CDI) was completed pursuant to allegations raised by the applicant.  The specific allegations raised by the applicant were:  that the Flight Commander abused his authority by (a) forcing students to make monetary contributions to an alcohol fund; (b) making students drink to the point of unconsciousness on an outing of the class; and (c) making students participate in the activities associated with allegations (a) and (b) a prerequisite of successful course completion.  An investigation was conducted by an investigating officer appointed by the 71 Flying Training Wing during the period 26 March 2002 to 10 May 2002.  The investigating officer concluded that one of the applicant’s allegations was substantiated.  The investigating officer’s conclusions were subsequently reviewed by legal authorities and approved by the 71 FTW commander.

An Equal Opportunity and Treatment (EOT) Complaint Clarification was conducted pursuant to a formal sexual harassment complaint made by the applicant against the Flight Commander.  The specific allegations raised by the applicant were:  (1) From October 2000 - May 2001, he was required to accomplish his duties as a UPT student in a classroom/flightroom where offensive pornography was displayed and extremely difficult to avoid; and (2) He was required (or highly recommended) to make a pornographic dollar bill before he would be allowed to solo.  The complaint clarification concluded that both allegations were substantiated and were reviewed and found legally sufficient by the Chief, Civil Law, 100 ARW/MEO.

The remaining relevant facts pertaining to this appeal are contained in the official documents provided in the applicant’s submission (Exhibit A) and in the letters prepared by the appropriate offices of the Air Force (Exhibit C, D, H & I).

_________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

HQ AETC/DOF reviewed the application and based on their examination no training errors were noted.  AETC/DOF provided an in-depth assessment of applicant’s training at Vance AFB and states that during the CDI process, states that the applicant described the impact of the Duty Not Including Flying (DNIF) and weather delays on his training.  He stated that with additional training he would be successful in training and was satisfied with his instruction.  AETC/DOF states that every student who has been eliminated desires a second chance to reenter USAF pilot training.  With repeated concentrated training, individuals may be able to succeed in the undergraduate training environment.  However, students must demonstrate potential to complete follow-on training in more demanding and complex aircraft.  In DOTF’s opinion, the decision to eliminate the applicant based on demonstrated performance and lack of potential was justified.  However, if the decision is to grant reinstatement, AETC/DOF recommends the applicant reenter the advanced phase of pilot training based on needs of the Air Force.

The HQ AETC/DOF evaluation, with attachments, is at Exhibit C.

AFPC/DPPPE recommends the application be denied.  DPPPE states that in accordance with AFI 36-2406, Officer and Enlisted Evaluation Systems, “If the student has failed to complete the course of training, use one of the following phrases and indicate whether the elimination was due to factors over which the student did or did not have control.”  The reason for elimination was cited as flying deficiency.  DPPPE states the training report was completed correctly.

The AFPC/DPPPE evaluation is at Exhibit D.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

The applicant’s rebuttal illustrates a scenario where an environment has been manipulated to create a situation, where all rules and regulations seemed to have been followed; however, the environment has influenced an individual’s performance.  He states that aside from being a victim of sexual harassment and of abuse of authority, he was also a victim of extortion.  The command management policies governing all DoD personnel were not followed.  Sexual harassment and a hostile work environment were proven to have existed in his flightroom.  Hazing, extortion and abuse of authority also existed.  The environment was proven to have been abusive and hostile by an authorized DoD investigative agency.  

Applicant states that many of the CDI aspects of his case are drawn from perception; however, the CDI missed the purpose of the investigation, which is apparent from the three findings they rendered.  The instructors and the flight commander, as well as some students perceived that nothing was amiss.  It could be that the students were second lieutenants, unknowledgeable in the specifics of the regulations regarding the allegations.  He knows that the environment he trained in had negative effects on him as well as his family.  It definitely affected his daily flying performance.  He wishes to finish the path he set out on and gain his pilot wings.  He deserves the opportunity to do that in an environment that is 100 percent in line with the spirit and word of all DoD and Air Force policies and regulations.  Was he eliminated because he would not participate in the session in question?  No, he was eliminated due to flying deficiencies in the T-38.  He does not argue this; however, he does argue whether the environment that he was at odds with had any impact of a negative nature on his performance.  He says it did.  

Applicant states that there is just one conclusion that can be reached given the overwhelming amount of verifiable information presented.  The environment presented at Vance AFB, was in direct violation of the Department of Defense, the Uniform Code of Military Justice, the United States Air Force, Air Education and Training Command, the 71st Flying Training Wing, and the 25th Flying Training Squadron regulations policies, and guidelines concerning sexual harassment, hazing, extortion, and abuse of authority.  As such the environment was hostile and abusive.  The environment was not conducive to learning and therefore he should be reinstated into the Undergraduate Pilot Training pipeline and his personnel records be cleared as requested.

On 18 December 2002, applicant forwarded a copy of an Air Force News Article titled “Airman’s Death Prompts Changes in Training.”  (See Exhibit G).

The applicant’s complete submission, with attachments 1-16, is at Exhibit F.

_________________________________________________________________

THE BOARD CONCLUDES THAT:

1.  The applicant has exhausted all remedies provided by existing law or regulations.

2.  The application was not timely filed; however, it is in the interest of justice to excuse the failure to timely file.

3.  Sufficient relevant evidence has been presented to demonstrate the existence of injustice.  We have carefully reviewed all the available documentation pertaining to this case and conclude that the applicant has been the victim of sexual harassment in the form of quid pro quo and a hostile work environment as concluded by the Military Equal Opportunity (MEO) complaint review.  We noted that the MEO findings substantiated the applicant’s complaint and indicated that the primary cause of the tensions he experienced with the staff of the Fighter Training Squadron, and in particular with his Flight Commander, was due to sexual harassment.  In view of the foregoing, and in recognition of the applicant’s previous superior performance, we are of the opinion that the environment in which the SUPT training was conducted contributed negatively to the applicant’s ability as an Air Force pilot and his eventual elimination from SUPT.  Based on this finding, we believe the circumstances of this case warrant his being given an opportunity to regain his Undergraduate Pilot Training slot; however, not at the Navy facility as the applicant has requested but at his last training location.  We have noted the applicant’s argument for requesting training with the Navy; however, we believe that responsible officials have taken appropriate corrective measures to ensure that a professional training environment is and will be maintained.  Additionally, sufficient time has elapsed since this incident transpired and a new realm of authority is in place.  Therefore, we believe that it is in the best interest of both the Air Force and the applicant, that he resume his Air Force flying career at the training facility where his disenrollment occurred.  In view of the MEO substantiated findings and the apparent hostile work environment he endured, we believe the Training Report rendered for the period 25 October 2000 through 12 June 2001 should be removed from his record.  Accordingly, we recommend that his records be corrected as indicated below.

4.  We note the applicant’s request that his record be cleansed of his Officer Performance Reports (OPRs) and Education Training Reports (TRs) from Vance AFB and any others between the time he left NAS Whiting Field until his return to UPT.  No relevant evidence has been presented to demonstrate the existence of error or injustice that would lead us to believe that his OPRs and TRs, with the exception of the TR closing 12 June 2001, received while stationed at Vance AFB are erroneous or unjust.  Therefore, in the absence of persuasive evidence to the contrary, we find no compelling basis to recommend removal of these particular OPRs and TRs.  

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.  Therefore, the request for a hearing is not favorably considered.

_________________________________________________________________

THE BOARD DETERMINES THAT:

The pertinent military records of the Department of the Air Force relating to APPLICANT be corrected to show that:

	a.  The Education/Training Report, AF Form 475, for the period 25 October 2000 through 12 June 2001, and all documents and references to his elimination of Undergraduate Pilot Training for flying deficiencies, 25th Flying Training Squadron, Vance AFB, OK, be declared void and removed from his records.  

	b.  Provided he is otherwise eligible, he be reinstated in Undergraduate Pilot Training (UPT) at Vance AFB, OK, at the earliest practicable date for the purpose of T-38 advanced (Bomber-Fighter) track training.

_________________________________________________________________

The following members of the Board considered this application in Executive Session on 14 May 2003, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603:

All members voted to correct the record as recommended.  The following documentary evidence was considered in connection with AFBCMR Docket Number 02-01818.

   Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 23 May 02, w/atchs.
   Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
   Exhibit C.  Letter, AETC/DOF, dated 24 Sep 02, w/atchs
   Exhibit D.  Letter, AFPC/DPPPE, dated 18 Oct 02, w/atchs.
   Exhibit E.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 25 Oct 02.
   Exhibit F.  Letter from Applicant, undated, w/atchs.
   Exhibit G.  AFNEWS Article, released 24 Nov 99.
   Exhibit H.  Commander Directed Investigation, 71 FTW/CC, dated
               25 Jul 02, w/atchs (withdrawn).
   Exhibit I.  Equal Opportunity Treatment Complaint, 100 ARW/ME,
               dated 12 Feb 02, w/atchs (withdrawn).

                            
                                   Panel Chair
 
AFBCMR 02-01818

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 xxxxxxxxxxxxx, be corrected to show that:

		    a.  The Education/Training Report, AF Form 475, for the period 25 October 2000 through 12 June 2001, and all documents and references to his elimination of Undergraduate Pilot Training for flying deficiencies, 25th Flying Training Squadron, Vance AFB, OK, be, and hereby are, declared void and removed from his records.  

	b.  Provided he is otherwise eligible, he be reinstated in Undergraduate Pilot Training (UPT) at Vance AFB, OK, at the earliest practicable date for the purpose of T-38 advanced (Bomber-Fighter) track training.

                                                                          XXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
                                                                          Director
                                                                          Air Force Review Boards Agency