RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF:	DOCKET NUMBER:  BC-2004-01709
		INDEX CODE:  115.00

		COUNSEL:  NONE

		HEARING DESIRED:  YES

MANDATORY CASE COMPLETION DATE:  30 NOVEMBER 2005

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

His record be corrected to reflect he completed Introductory Flight Training (IFT) and his selection to Undergraduate Pilot Training (UPT) be reinstated.  If his appeal is approved, he requests a waiver of the five year Total Federal Commissioned Service Date (TFCSD) to attend UPT.
_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

He applied for and was accepted for UPT by the 2004 Active Duty Undergraduate Flying Training Board.  His records inaccurately reflected his elimination from IFT.  Consequently, his orders to UPT, class start date of 17 May 2004, were rescinded.

He completed IFT in 1999; however, during the course of his training, the syllabus was not properly adhered to resulting in his completing the course albeit without having soloed.  He was informed that this precluded his consideration for UPT at that time, but he could apply to have this waived or reapply in the future.  He applied for a waiver and it was denied on the basis that the solo requirement was not met--not that he failed to complete the course.

The document making it appear that he was eliminated from IFT is an AETC Form 126A, dated August 1999.  This document notes he did not solo and recommends, among other things, that he not be considered for Specialized Undergraduate Navigator Training (SUNT).  His first assignment from USAFA was to SUNT and he graduated SUNT on 1 December 2000.  The IFT Certificate of Completion and the fact that the AETC Form 126A recommendations were not followed should prove sufficient to correct his record.

In support of his request, the applicant submits a copy of the letter revoking his 2004 UPT selection and a personal statement, with additional documents associated with the issues cited in his contentions.  The applicant’s complete submission, with attachments, is at Exhibit A.
_________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

The applicant’s Total Active Federal Commissioned Service Date (TAFCSD) is 2 June 1999.  He is currently serving on active duty as a KC-135 navigator instructor in the grade of captain, with an effective date and date of rank of 2 June 2003.

Information extracted from applicant’s submission reveals that he was selected to attend Undergraduate Pilot Training (UPT) by the Active Duty Undergraduate Flying Training (UFT) Board, which convened on 2-5 March 2004.  However, his name was subsequently removed from the list of officers selected to attend UPT because it was discovered he was ineligible to apply to the active duty UPT board due to his elimination from Introductory Flight Training (IFT) at the Air Force Academy in 1999 and subsequent loss of his commissioning source UPT slot.

In response to the applicant’s 27 July 2004 letter requesting additional time in order to respond to the advisory opinions, his case was administratively closed on 5 August 2004.  By letter, dated 1 October 2004, the applicant requested his appeal be reopened for consideration by the Board (Exhibit B).

The remaining relevant facts pertaining to this application are contained in the letters prepared by the appropriate offices of the Air Force at Exhibit C and D.
_________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATIONS:

HQ 557th  Flying Training Squadron commander (557 FTS/CC) recommends the application be denied.  They state the applicant’s request for reinstatement into UPT was reviewed in 1999 by the commander of the Air Education and Training Command and denied.  Based on the applicant’s records, he was the only one of 95 student pilots that went through Colorado Skyways in 1999 and did not solo within the required 40 hours.  The applicant’s records state he was unable to solo within 40 hours due to Flying Training Deficiencies (FTDs) and was eliminated from the IFT program.  The HQ 557 FTS/CC evaluation is at Exhibit C.

HQ AFPC/DPAO provided the following information for clarification only, with no recommendation.  DPAO states the applicant is a United States Air Force Academy (USAFA) graduate of the class of 1999.  He applied to the 2-5 March 2004 UFT active duty board and was selected to attend UPT.  During the course of loading his assignment, HQ AETC discovered a database entry identifying the applicant as an introductory flying training program (IFT) eliminee.  The applicant provided documentation since no source documents were available.  DPAO indicates that the applicant attended SUNT despite the recommendation on the AETC Form 126A and was an instructor navigator, with over 1,200 navigator hours when he applied to the UPT board.  He also has obtained a civilian pilot’s license.  The March 2004 UPT board reviewed 253 applicants and rated the applicant in the bottom quarter of 150 active duty selectees.

DPAO cannot account for the discrepancies between the dates showing the applicant’s completion of IFT and then later, his elimination from IFT.  They cannot account for his attendance of SUNT despite the recommendation against consideration to attend SUNT.  DPAO has a copy of a January 2000 email from an NCO during the reclassification process that says, “the Academy wants him to be a navigator…” but cannot find any other documentation.  DPAO contacted the commander who was at the USAFA at the time and he clearly remembers eliminating the applicant for flying training deficiencies, specifically for failure to solo in the 40-hour syllabus.  He could not explain why the applicant received a certificate of completion, but feels it must have been an error.  DPAO is responsible for conducting the UFT active duty selection board; in this role, they made the decision, based on the eligibility criteria in AFI 36-2205, to remove the applicant’s name from the March 2004 select list.  The HQ AFPC/DPAO evaluation, with attachment, is at Exhibit D.
_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATIONS:

The applicant reviewed the advisory opinions and indicated that the only record stating he was unable to solo within 40 hours due to FTDs and was eliminated from the IFT program if the AETC Form 126A and it is a recommendation.  He could have soloed in the allotted 40 hours and this is evident in the letter provided.  He was not eliminated from the IFT program--he completed the program without soloing.  There were no course documents or verbal statements of a solo requirement.  The only document he was given upon arrival in the program was a “Welcome to Introductory Flight Training” packet, which mentions the 40 hours of instruction, but does not state the solo requirement.  If he had been aware of a solo requirement, he could have and would have soloed.  Aside from the circumstances surrounding his case, he believes he is more than qualified to excel and successfully complete UPT and has provided an additional letter of recommendation from his flight instructor.  The applicant’s complete submission, with attachments, is at Exhibit F.
_________________________________________________________________

ADDITIONAL AIR FORCE EVALUATIONS:

HQ AETC/DOF recommends the application be denied.  Based on DOF’s review, they find the applicant did not meet established standards for completing IFT and is, therefore, ineligible to apply for pilot training.  DOF states that both the United States Air Force Academy (USAFA) Introductory Flight Training (IFT) program manager and the flight school president briefed the solo requirement to the applicant.  As to the allegation he did not believe he was eliminated from IFT, the applicant signed a commander’s review letter and the AETC Form 126A, Record of Commander’s Review Action, which recommended the applicant be removed from flight training for his inability to solo.  Since completion of IFT was a prerequisite for UPT and the applicant had lost his UPT slot because he had not completed IFT, the applicant petitioned the AETC/CC for a waiver to the requirement to complete IFT, which was denied.  How and why the applicant received a completion certificate cannot be determined.  The applicant was eliminated from IFT for Flying Training Deficiencies (FTD).  The applicant’s allegations were previously researched and addressed by the appropriate agencies.  DOF’s review of the allegations found no new evidence that would indicate changes to past recommendations and decisions.  To waive IFT completion and reinstate the applicant into UPT would not be fair to those students who did solo, who did complete IFT and who were able to master the required flying skills the first time around.  Nor, would it be fair to those other applicants who were eliminated from IFT for FTD and cannot attend UPT.  The applicant’s subsequent success as a civil pilot is to his credit, but that follow-on success should not be rewarded with reinstatement into pilot training.  However, if the Board provides the requested relief, change the AETC Form 126A to read, “reconsider for reinstatement at a later date,” allowing the applicant to reapply for pilot training in accordance with the governing Air Force instruction.  The HQ AETC/DOF evaluation, with attachments, is at Exhibit G.
_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF ADDITIONAL AIR FORCE EVALUATIONS:

A copy of the additional Air Force evaluation was forwarded to applicant on 25 February 2005 for review and response (Exhibit H).

As of this date, the applicant has not responded.  However, it appears the applicant’s squadron commander has submitted a response in behalf of the applicant.

The squadron commander states, in part, that after reviewing all the facts and circumstances surrounding the applicant’s elimination from IFT, he believes the Air Force made a mistake and caused a great injustice to the applicant.  It is apparent to him that --- --- was more concerned with flying all 40 hours allotted in the IFT program to generate revenue rather than with successfully soloing IFT students.  He indicates the applicant was unsuccessful in his multiple attempts (since August 1999) to correct the injustice.  He is thoroughly convinced that what happened to the applicant regarding his UPT slot is wrong and the only way to make things right in the applicant’s case is to reinstate his UPT slot, grant him the necessary waiver (waiver to exceed his five years of Total Federal Commissioned Service) to attend UPT, enroll him in the next available UPT class and correct his AETC Form 126A to indicate he successfully completed IFT.

The squadron commander’s complete submission, with attachments, 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 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 error or injustice.  After carefully reviewing the applicant’s complete submission and the evidence of record in judging the merits of his case, we were persuaded that reasonable doubt exists concerning the adequacy of the applicant’s training while he was in the Introductory Flight Training (IFT) program and his subsequent elimination from the program in 1999.  We were persuaded by the statement from a former flight instructor who believes the applicant was unfairly treated during his training.  The former flight instructor personally flew with the applicant while he was undergoing IFT training and states the applicant was competent to solo but, due to switching between instructors and different teaching techniques, the applicant was not given the opportunity to solo.  We also noted the statements of support from a Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) pilot examiner, a flight instructor from his current assignment and his current commander who highly recommend the applicant be reinstated to Undergraduate Pilot Training (UPT).  In addition, we note the applicant has subsequently obtained a civilian pilot license and that his first assignment from the Air Force Academy was to Specialized Undergraduate Navigator Training (SUNT), despite the AETC Form 126A recommendation against SUNT consideration.  As to applicant’s request that his records be corrected to reflect completion of the IFT program, since the solo requirement was not completed, we are inclined to agree with HQ AETC/DOF’s recommendation to change the AETC Form 126A to reflect reconsideration for reinstatement at a later date.  Based on the experience he has received since 1999, the numerous statements of support and in consideration of the fact that he has since corrected the flying training deficiencies for which he was eliminated, we believe that any doubt should be resolved in favor of the applicant and he be reinstated in UPT, providing he is otherwise qualified for aviation service, with appropriate waiver approval.  In view of the foregoing, we recommend the applicant’s records be corrected as indicated below.
_________________________________________________________________

THE BOARD RECOMMENDS THAT:

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

	a.  The AETC Form 126, Record of Commander’s Review Action, Section III, reflects “RECONSIDER FOR REINSTATEMENT AT A LATER DATE.”

	b.  Provided he is physically qualified, he be reinstated in Undergraduate Pilot Training (UPT) at the earliest practicable date and he be granted waivers for age, total active federal commissioned service and completion of the Introductory Flight Training (IFT) Program, if required.
_________________________________________________________________

The following members of the Board considered this application in Executive Session on 7 April 2005 and 2 June 2005, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603:

All members voted to correct the records, as recommended.  The following documentary evidence was considered in connection with AFBCMR Docket Number BC-2004-01709.

   Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 6 May 04, w/atchs.
   Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
   Exhibit C.  Letter, 557 FTS/CC, undated.
   Exhibit D.  Letter, HQ AFPC/DPAO, dated 6 Jul 04, w/atch.
   Exhibit E.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 9 Jul 04.
   Exhibit F.  Letter from Applicant, dated 1 Oct 04, w/atchs.
   Exhibit G.  Letter, HQ AETC/DOF, dated 17 Feb 05, w/atchs.
   Exhibit H.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 25 Feb 05.
   Exhibit I.  Letter from Applicant’s commander, dated
               23 Mar 05, w/atchs.

AFBCMR BC-2004-01709

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 APPLICANT be corrected to show that:

		a.  The AETC Form 126, Record of Commander’s Review Action, Section III, reflects “RECONSIDER FOR REINSTATEMENT AT A LATER DATE.”

	b.  Provided he is physically qualified, he be reinstated in Undergraduate Pilot Training (UPT) at the earliest practicable date and he be granted waivers for age, total active federal commissioned service and completion of the Introductory Flight Training (IFT) Program, if required.