RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF:				DOCKET NUMBER:  BC-2004-02126
INDEX CODE:  115.02
	XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX				COUNSEL: YES

	XXXXXXXXXXXX					HEARING DESIRED:  YES

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: 

His flight records and aeronautical orders be corrected to reinstate his pilot rating and he be reassigned to a non-fighter multi-place aircraft readiness training unit (RTU).  As an alternative, if the Board finds the Flying Evaluation Board (FEB) recommendations should stand, his Undergraduate Pilot Training (UPT)-incurred Active Duty Service Commitment (ADSC) of 18 October 2011 be rescinded.  By amendment at Exhibit E, his second and third ADSCs (10 June 2007 and 13 February 2005) also be waived.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

Eight of the eleven findings of the FEB used to deny him from transitioning to a non-fighter multi-plane aircraft are exclusive to fighter aircraft.  There is not sufficient evidence to support the FEB’s findings.  

In support of his application, he provides a personal statement and copies of his Officer Performance Report (OPR) closing 27 November 2003; COMACC letter, dated 11 August 2003, disqualifying the applicant from pilot training; electronic communications concerning his case; training and performance reports; pilot training video tapes (3); transcripts from the FEB proceedings (8 volumes); and his P0404A Promotion Recommendation Form (PRF).  The applicant’s complete submission with attachments is at Exhibit A.

_________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

According to the military personnel data system, the applicant is currently serving on active duty with a Total Active Federal Military Service Date of 1 February 1996 and a first ADSC date of 18 October 2011.  He has a second and third ADSCs of 10 June 2007 and 13 February 2005.  His current grade is captain with an effective date and a date of rank of 17 January 2000.  The applicant holds an aeronautical rating of navigator with an Aviation Service Date of 25 March 1996.

The applicant entered A-10 Initial Qualification Training on 15 March 2002.  According to his Education/Training Report, dated 28 November 2002, the applicant was eliminated for flying deficiency prior to his completion of the 20-week course.  An FEB was convened 25-27 November 2002, to consider evidence concerning the applicant’s professional qualification for aviation service, evaluate his potential for future rated duties, and to make recommendations regarding his future flying duties to higher authorities.  The FEB found:  

1.  The applicant had not previously met an FEB.  

2.  The applicant had not previously requested voluntary disqualification from aviation service.

3.  The applicant had failed to meet flying standards while enrolled in a formal flying training course by exhibiting dangerously low levels of situational awareness at various times throughout the training course, affecting his weapons delivery, adherence to training rules, judgment, flight discipline, and safety.

4.  The applicant failed to meet flying standards while enrolled in a formal flying training course by flying the maximum allowable number of X sorties due to student non-progression in the A-10 Pilot Initial Qualification Course.  

5.  The applicant demonstrated a general lack of knowledge during the training course in areas including systems operations, emergency procedures, and the local airspace.

6.  The applicant lied to his instructor during an SA-5 sortie and during the subsequent debrief about one switch error that he committed on Range 3.  He confessed to his error the following day and testified to the FEB that he regretted the serious lapse in judgment and never did it again.  

7.  The applicant did not possess the requisite aviation skills to transition into a multi-place non-fighter aircraft as a pilot.  

8.  The applicant would require continuous additional supervision throughout his flying training if he were to remain qualified for aviation service.

Wing, Numbered Air Force, and Major Command level legal reviews found the findings and recommendations of the FEB to be legally sufficient.  On 11 August 2003, after wing (convening authority) and Numbered Air Force (NAF) concurrence with the FEB recommendations, the Commander of Air Combat Command (COMACC), (decision authority), directed the applicant be disqualified from continued aviation service as a pilot, be allowed to wear the aviation pilot wings, and remain qualified for aviation service as a navigator.  

_________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

COMACC reviewed the applicant’s case file and recommends disapproval.  COMACC states the recommendations of the FEB are advisory only and not binding.  Regardless of the recommendations of the FEB, COMACC has the authority to retain or disqualify the applicant from rated service, to decide whether to continue him to another airframe, and to determine whether he should continue wearing the aviation badge.  It is COMACC’s opinion that the applicant’s requests have no basis and; therefore, he stands by the findings and recommendations of the FEB, the professional review and recommendations of the rated functional experts, the legal review for sufficiency of evidence, and the decision to permanently disqualify the applicant as a pilot in any type of Air Force aircraft.  COMACC states that even if the FEB’s recommendation had been different, the final decision would still remain the same.  In addition, a grant of the requested relief would have no effect on the COMACC decision to disqualify the applicant from aviation service as a pilot.  The COMACC evaluation, with attachments, is at Exhibit C.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

The evidence given to COMACC was skewed and editorialized.  He was not given a fair chance during his pilot training and later he was not given a fair trial during his FEB.  Although the proceedings of the FEB were supposed to be non-adversarial, the deficiencies presented during the hearing made it up the chain of command and made it so.  The Air Force has a substantial monetary and time investment in him.  His foremost desire is to have the opportunity to return that investment as a pilot.  However, if the Board does not find that possible, he respectfully requests the Board take into consideration his completion of his Navigator ADSC along with his close to nine years of honorable service in the Air Force and rescind his UPT ADSC of 18 October 2011.  Additionally, since his Advanced Flying Training (AFT) ADSC (10 June 2007) and his Permanent Change of Station (PCS) ADSC (13 February 2005) are a direct result of him being non-voluntarily called into the navigator field and PCSd, he respectfully requests that those two subsequent ADSCs be rescinded as well so that he can move back to Puerto Rico and start another career outside of the Air Force. The applicant’s rebuttal, with attachments is 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.  Sufficient relevant evidence has been presented to demonstrate the existence of an injustice.  The applicant’s records indicate he incurred two ADSCs for his pilot training, an ADSC of 18 October 2011 for UPT and an ADSC of 10 June 2007 for AFT.  We note the applicant’s desire to be a pilot in any Air Force aircraft and his assertions that eight of the eleven findings of the FEB used to deny him from transitioning to a non-flight multi-plane aircraft are exclusive to fighter aircraft.  ACC/CC is adamant that because of the type of failures committed by the applicant during training, he would not be approved to fly any Air Force aircraft as a pilot and without strong evidence by the applicant indicating that this decision represents an abuse of discretionary authority or was contrary to the best interests of the Air Force and the individual concerned, we are not inclined to reverse that decision.  ACC/DOT has indicated that since he failed AFT, they would not hold the applicant to his ADSC of 10 June 2007; however, they would hold him to his ADSC of 18 October 2011 for passing UPT.  However, since the applicant cannot be utilized as a pilot in any Air Force aircraft, partial relief with respect to his UPT ADSC is warranted.  In view of the above, it is our opinion that the applicant’s records be corrected as indicated below.

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 RECOMMENDS THAT:

The pertinent military records of the Department of the Air Force relating to APPLICANT be corrected to show that his Active Duty Service Commitment (ADSC) of 18 October 2011, incurred as a result of his completion of Undergraduate Pilot Training (UPT) be declared void.

_________________________________________________________________

The following members of the Board considered this application in Executive Session on 9 February 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-2004-02126:

	Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 1 Jul 04, with attachments.
	Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
	Exhibit C.  Letter, ACC/CC, dated 10 Aug 04.
	Exhibit D.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 20 Aug 04.
	Exhibit D.  Applicant’s Rebuttal, dated 14 Sep 04.

AFBCMR BC-2004-02126

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 XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX, be corrected to show that his Active Duty Service Commitment (ADSC) of 18 October 2011, incurred as a result of his completion of Undergraduate Pilot Training (UPT) be declared void.