RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF:				DOCKET NUMBER:  BC-2002-03006
							INDEX CODE:  100.07
						COUNSEL:  NONE

							HEARING DESIRED:  YES

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

His elimination from Specialized Undergraduate Pilot Training (SUPT) be reversed and he be reentered into a pilot training program.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

Due to his status as an Air National Guard (ANG) student pilot, he was treated unfairly and inappropriately received negative attention from a key instructor.  He was denied additional training flights after breaks in training to which he was entitled and which other students received.  He was told that he was not in the proper track for his abilities but was placed in the more demanding T-38 track because of his ANG status.  He was issued glasses which interfered with his flying despite having 20-15 vision and having never before, or after, having a need for glasses.  

He was a commercial airline pilot with 2,000 flying hours when he entered the ANG specifically for the purpose of becoming a pilot.  The ANG unit was a fighter unit.  SUPT consists of two flying phases, T-37, the introductory level of flying, and an advanced tract following T-37 training.  The advanced tracks are T-38 for fighter aircraft, T-1 for transport aircraft, and T-44 for propeller and helicopter training.  Because he was from an ANG unit that flew fighters, he was already designated to go into T-38 training.  He completed T-37 training on schedule with above average academics, typical problems in the other areas of T-37 training, with more difficulty in the formation phase of flying.  The difficulties he had with formation flying brought him to the attention of the squadron commander.  He was required to take a "Check Ride" with the commander.  After the successful "Check Ride" the commander told him that despite his good make-up flight he had concerns about his progressing to T-38s and said that he would call his ANG unit to discuss his concerns.  He later found out that the commander never made the call.  Once he entered the T-38 squadron he was told by the flight commander (XXXXX) "I want you to understand that if you were on active duty you would not be here (in T-38s)."  Captain XXXXX made disparaging remarks regarding his own flying abilities and the applicant's civilian time.  During the formation phase of training, Captain XXXXX flew as the instructor pilot (IP) with the applicant almost exclusively.  Two of the applicant's formation flight failures were with Captain XXXXX.  At the applicant's request, he was assigned a different IP for the following flight.  However, Captain XXXXX was in the wing jet that flew in the formation.  The applicant felt that he performed satisfactorily and the IP made no negative comment in the aircraft.  After the IP had a lengthy discussion with Captain XXXXX, the applicant was debriefed that he had failed the flight.  Because he had three bad flights he was required to fly a Review Ride (88 ride) with the flight commander, Captain XXXXX.  Captain XXXXX failed him on the 88 ride, which generated an Elimination Ride (89 ride) with the squadron commander.  Between the 88 ride and 89 ride, students are given two ungraded warm-up rides, which the applicant performed very well.  Although he felt he flew the 89 ride properly, he was failed.  During the debrief it was pointed out that during the final turn to approach and landing a high Angle-of-Attack (AOA) was indicated and was the main reason for the unsatisfactory score.  His review of MCMAN 11-238 discusses the final turn and descent in great detail and applicant is convinced that he did make the necessary immediate corrections required because the aircraft controls were never taken from him.  Had he not made the correction the IP would have had to intervene.  

He was ordered by Captain XXXXX to go to the optometrist for an eye exam even though he never had a vision problem.  He was issued eyeglasses even though he felt he did not need them.  He had trouble with the glasses because they flogged inside his helmet.  He was wearing them on all of his failed flights and believes they may have contributed to his performances.  He has since passed two FAA flying physical examinations without glasses.  Another issue is the breaks in training he experienced.  He experienced weather breaks between 20 October and 31 October and again between 2 November and 9 November.  After these breaks, he never passed another training flight.  He requested "87" rides, which are not scored and required by regulations, but his requests were denied.  

In support of his request, applicant provided his counsel's brief, personal statements; AETC Form 12, Summary Performance Report; Vance AFB T-38 Student Activity Record; an extract from MVMAN 11-238, his grade report, and character references.  His complete submission, with attachments, is at Exhibit A.

_________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

Data extracted from the personnel data system reflects the applicant, a member of the ANG and a commercial airline pilot, was appointed a second lieutenant, Reserve of the Air Force on 22 October 99 and has been progressively promoted to the grade of captain, having assumed that grade effective and with a date of rank of 9 December 03.  He entered pilot training at Vance AFB, OK on 29 February 2000 with an end-assignment as an F-15 pilot.  On 15 December 2000, he was eliminated from SUPT.

_________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

AETC/DOF recommends denial.  DOF states that the applicant's full training records were destroyed one year after his elimination; therefore, the inability to review instructor comments, supervisor counseling statements, directed visits to the Flight Surgeon, and other detailed information available only in the student grade-book, limits their capability to precisely portray his training.  The applicant asserts the commander did not call the ANG unit to discuss concerns that he was not qualified to be entered into the T-38 advanced training track.  There is no way possible to support or refute this statement. However, AETCI 36-2205 requires undergraduate flying training squadrons to inform the ANG anytime Guard students require a progress check, an elimination check, a commander's review, or when there is a reasonable doubt about the student's potential to complete training.  Based upon this guidance, it is reasonable to assume the applicant's home unit was aware of difficulties encountered in both the T-37 and T-38 phases of training.  His assertion that his flight commander treated him unfairly is supported only by his own written statements.  DOF did discuss these assertions with a former Vance T-38 instructor, who stated that the officer in question had the reputation of being a very good flight commander, 'tough with students, but fair'.  In light of the applicant's continued flying difficulties, the statements attributed could be construed as motivational in nature, but misinterpreted by the applicant.  Applicant alleges he failed his formation elimination check with the T-38 squadron commander for traffic pattern and landing - which the applicant argues that he did meet standards.  When assigning an overall grade, the Squadron Commander assessed the applicant's abilities, potential for course completion within syllabus constraints, and demonstrated success in follow-on training.  The record shows the applicant failed the formation elimination check for not only traffic pattern and landing, but also in-flight checks/fuel procedures, situational awareness, and task management.  The last three items, while not specific to formation, have task elements directly related to aircraft maneuvering in formation.  Training records show the applicant failed the preceding formation progress check for six separate items graded below standards, including an unsatisfactory grade for traffic pattern and landing.  Applicant was graded below standards on maneuvers/tasks on the elimination check, which were consistent negative trend items during his formation training.

As an accepted training management practice, students having flying problems are routinely sent to the Flight Surgeon's office for an eye exam.  This is used to identify potential changes in visual acuity manifesting itself as an inability to land the aircraft or perceive closure during formation maneuvering.  Although the detailed record is unavailable, DOF presumes from the available record the Flight Commander sent him for an eye exam after failing two successive contact sorties.  Eyeglasses were 'apparently' prescribed by a doctor.  The two additional training sorties listed on the applicant's contact grade report were 'apparently' authorized for "corrective lens adaptation."  The decision whether or not a pilot or student flies with prescription eyewear is directed by competent medical authorities, not by a flying supervisor.  The Flight Commander did not make the applicant wear eyeglasses.

Applicant's supposition he would automatically succeed in the T-1 Airlift/Tanker track because of his commercial aviation experience is false.  The T-1 training program demands close formation abilities (e.g., air-refueling), as well as situational awareness and task management skills on par with those required in the T-38 track.  Success in civilian or commercial aviation does not guarantee success in USAF pilot training.  

Applicant was granted additional training sorties in accordance with AETC guidance.  The basic premise of this authorization is to provide additional training for cause, i.e., weather, maintenance cancellations, illness, etc.  Syllabus guidance is as follows:  Break-in-Training Events - The Flight Commander authorizes these sorties for extended delays in training.  For aircraft, the break-in-training guideline is when a student has not flown for a minimum of five calendar days.  Flight Commanders will use this authority only when the remaining syllabus sorties are insufficient to compensate for the student's break-in-training.  In the situations cited by the applicant (20 October - 31 October and 2 November - 9 November), he had only flown a small number of formation sorties and there were sufficient training opportunities and additional training sorties in accordance with command guidance.  DOF agrees that his performance in T-37s would raise doubts as to his suitability to proceed into the T-38 advanced track. However, in all cases this is an ANG decision.  ANG fighter units may chose to find an airlift or tanker unit for sponsored students when they lack potential for fighter training.  However, units may also choose to continue as programmed, accepting the risk a student may be eliminated from T - 38 training.  There is little direct correlation between military and civilian flight training programs when compared on flying skills taught, training, intensity, and discipline. These are two disparate types of training and flying environments.  The DOF evaluation is at Exhibit C.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

Applicant states that he spoke with both the Vice Wing Commander and the Squadron Commander following the elimination and both stated to never have been told of his difficulties and added that if they were made aware they would have re-routed him to the T-1 Airlift/Tanker track.  His home ANG unit in no way made the choice to continue as programmed.  The ANG did not accept the risk that he may be eliminated from training and was completely unaware of the situation or circumstances.  Both Commanders made several unsuccessful attempts to secure a T-1 assignment for him.  

The training record shows the progress check and elimination check to be the only times he received a failing grade for traffic pattern and landing in the formation phase.  On the flight just prior to the elimination check, he was graded as good on traffic pattern and landings.  This does not indicate a consistent negative trend item.  During the debrief he was told that the decision was subjective and would take into account demonstrated potential for success in follow-on training.  He was then told that he was thought incapable of succeeding in F-15 training with the full understanding that the decision was based on his future F-15 schooling in mind.  What was not considered was the latitude the ANG has in securing alternate follow-on training.  The only alternatives considered were F-15 completion or Elimination. He expressed his concerns during meetings with the Operations Group Commander and Wing Commander at Vance immediately following his elimination check.  However, due to a student death only weeks earlier that occurred in the traffic pattern and landing phase of flight in the T-37 squadron, there was an extreme level of sensitivity concerning this phase of flight. 

He endured intense fogging and serious difficulty adjusting to the lenses of the glasses he was prescribed.  This is likely due to the fact that he did not need glasses.  He expressed concerns regarding the eyeglasses to his flight commander who did not consider allowing retesting of his eyes, but simply made it an order that the glasses be worn.  He has since demonstrated better than perfect eyesight on three FAA eye exams and one Department of Justice eye exam.

The periods of 20 October - 31 October and 2 November - 9 November were excessive breaks in training.  These breaks were of much larger duration than any other student.  Following the 20 October - 31 October break in training there was exactly one flight remaining in the training block.  Following the 2 November - 9 November break in training there were exactly two flights remaining in the training block.  The remaining syllabus sorties were certainly insufficient to compensate.  

His complete submission is at Exhibit E.

_________________________________________________________________

ADDITIONAL AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

ANG/DPDF recommends denial.  DPDF states it was evident that the applicant, from the beginning of SUPT, was a below average student.  During SUPT training there are numerous checks and balances to ensure students are receiving the best training possible.  The registrar contacting HQ ANG and the sponsoring home unit is an integral part of the Commander's Awareness Program.  Documented email messages prove that this process, as required by AETCI 36-2205, was in place and functioning at the time.  In a response to a Congressional inquiry, ANG/DPFFF replied, "...while formation difficulties may have led to his entering a commander's review process, his elimination was based upon deficiencies in traffic pattern and landing, in-flight checks/fuel awareness procedures, situational awareness, and task management--all non-formation related items.  The Air National Guard, in fact, does not support his reinstatement to JSUPT based on these facts from AETC."  ANG/DPDF is confident he received the highest degree of training and was afforded ample opportunity to be successful in JUPT.  The DPDF evaluation is at Exhibit I.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF ADITIONAL AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

A copy of the additional Air Force evaluation was forwarded to the applicant on 10 Mar 04 for review and comment within 30 days.  As of this date, this office has received no response.

_________________________________________________________________

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.  We took notice of the applicant's complete submission in judging the merits of the case; however, we are not persuaded by the evidence submitted that the appropriate standards or procedures were not applied, or that he was denied rights and privileges he was entitled to.  The applicant's contentions are duly noted; however, it is our opinion that applicant was granted every reasonable opportunity for successful completion of SUPT, but was unable to do so because of the difficulties in performance he encountered.  Therefore, we agree with the opinions and recommendations of the Air Force offices 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 the absence of 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-2002-03006 in Executive Session on 6 May 04, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603:

	Panel Chair
	Member
	Member

The following documentary evidence was considered:

    Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 16 Sep 02, w/atchs.
    Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
    Exhibit C.  Letter, AETC/DOF, dated 20 Nov 02, w/atchs.
    Exhibit D.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 27 Nov 02.
    Exhibit E.  Letter, Applicant, not dated, w/atchs.
    Exhibit F.  Letter, Counsel, dated 6 Jan 03.
    Exhibit G.  Letter, SAF/MRBC, dated 21 Jan 03.
    Exhibit H.  Letter, Applicant, dated 14 May 03.
    Exhibit I.  Letter, ANGB/DPPI, dated 8 Mar 04.
    Exhibit J.  Letter, SAF/MRBC, dated 10 Mar 04.