RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS
IN THE MATTER OF:	DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2008-01566 INDEX CODE:	115.00
COUNSEL:	NONE HEARING DESIRED:	YES

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:
His AETC IMT 126A, Record of Commander’s Review Action, in regards to Specialized Undergraduate Pilot Training (SUPT) Section IV, Approval Authority, be changed from “eliminate” to “reinstate.”

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:
A true injustice occurred when the reviewing and approval authorities of the Commander’s Review Action were misinformed when presented with information—-incongruent with established Air Force regulations; and for making their decision to eliminate him from training.

The information provided to the commander’s review board was abrupt and unsubstantiated.

At the time of his elimination, he was told the reason was for Manifestatations of Apprehension (MOA); however, he was unaware of the exact circumstances upon which the decision was based until he reviewed his records and requested the final AETC IMT 126A on 16 Apr 08.

In support of his request, the applicant provided statements in his own behalf and 24 attachments.

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

STATEMENT OF FACTS:
The applicant is  currently serving in the grade of first lieutenant as an Active Guard Reserve (AGR) officer in the Air Force Reserve. He was eliminated from SUPT on 26 Jan 05.

Other relevant facts are outlined in the Air Force advisory opinion at Exhibit B and the applicant’s rebuttal at Exhibit D.

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:
HQ AETC/A3F recommends denial. A3F states that their review found the applicant’s elimination met established AETC standards and policy. However, it was not clear from available documents, how the MOA categorization--tied to air- sickness--was concluded by the Flight Surgeon without the applicant actually flying and with no documented airsickness episode(s).

A3F states there appeared to be incomplete documentation; however, they located three individuals in the Commander’s Review (CR) process for clarification of the facts and circumstances leading to the applicant’s elimination. A3F further states they interviewed and/or exchanged e-mails with the former squadron commander, former operations group commander, and former wing commander. These independent interviews and e-mail communications were consistent in portraying the applicant as an individual who did not want to be in pilot training, manifested by a reluctance to fly. However, the applicant was also reluctant to quit or self-initiate elimination (Drop-on- Request/DOR).

At the time of the applicant’s entry into SUPT, the Air Force was undergoing force reshaping with significant officer reductions. The Flight Surgeon’s MOA evaluation became a “trigger” to have the applicant’s performance and attitude evaluated in a formal CR.

While it may be argued, without a single aircraft flight or documented air sickness episode, the MOA evaluation may be perceived as unfair—-in the Commander’s Review process, all commander’s interview students to assess their state of mind and motivation to be a pilot. It is not required to fly in order to be fearful of flying. In their judgment, they saw the applicant as not being motivated to fly, a “fear of flight” and MOA conclusion is logical. It may also be argued, given the circumstances, a categorization as Lack of Adaptability (LOA) may have been appropriate. In either case, after evaluation by both competent medical and rated personnel, with an operational judgment of lack of adaptability based on mission impairment or Operational Risk Management, elimination from training was warranted.

In summary, A3F states it should be noted the application to the AFBCMR was submitted more than three years after the events transpired and from their view, this time interval is disadvantageous to retrieve documentation, accurately recreate or reconstruct event timelines, and complicates locating cognizant officials or witnesses or events. It is not unreasonable to say, the applicant should have discovered the alleged error much sooner than 38 months after the fact.

The complete HQ AETC/A3F evaluation, with attachments, is at Exhibit B.

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:
The applicant states that at the time of his elimination he only had eight months of total time in service and was a new second lieutenant (2LT). There were no student pilot advocates for which an eliminee could seek un-biased information—or for someone to be proactive in providing information—so that a student could acquire a complete understanding and/or advice on exactly what they are being eliminated for (i.e., an explanation of the elimination terms), why they are being eliminated (i.e., specific reasons such as conduct, airsickness, academic deficiencies, etc), and what events will transpire after elimination is initiated (what they can do in response to the Commander’s Review process). There are a lot of rules among many regulations that apply to SUPT--well more than someone with little to no experience would be aware of and educated on.

He was wary to ask questions as an eliminee because there was a significant difference in rank and time in service between himself and the squadron, group, and wing commanders; not to mention it is considered extremely inappropriate for a 2LT to question a senior officer on their judgment. He was unfamiliar with Air Force rules and regulations at the time of his elimination and; therefore, was not aware of all of the pertinent information that could have been addressed at that  time. However, he has now acquired a much broader knowledge base.

He states upon a records review prior to his promotion to captain on 2 Jun 08, is when he recognized the injustice. Had he realized the error within the last two years, he would have submitted a request for correction sooner.

The notion of immediately separating eliminees from Extended Active Duty with the Regular Air Force, especially those who elected to self-eliminate/DOR from their initial skills training, was not conceived until approximately one full month after he was completely eliminated from SUPT and was not reflected in formal Force Shaping guidance until approximately six months after he was eliminated from SUPT. The idea that he was reluctant to DOR from SUPT with possible concern of also being separated could not have been a motive as the correlation and the conditions for DOR and separation did not wholly exist at the time of his elimination, as eliminees were being reclassified.

If he truly had a fear-of-flight, then leadership should have acted in conjunction  with AFI 11-402, Aviation Parachutist Service, Aeronautical Ratings and Badges, paragraph 3.7.1.3.3, which states, “Members in UFT who develop a fear of flying have ample opportunities during training to evaluate this fear and DOR from training without prejudice.” Therefore, based on this guidance, leadership should not have made the choice to eliminate him but rather motivate him to fly as instructed in AETCI 36- 2205, Applying for Flying Training, Air Battle Manager, and Astronaut Programs, paragraph 3.1 or advise him that his only

other course of action, if he truly had a fear of flying, would have been to DOR.

No specific deficiencies were noted on his AETC Form 126A so there is no reason to substantiate a claim that he could have been eliminated for LOA.

He did want to be in pilot training and was therefore motivated to do is best to succeed. He displayed no physical issues, his fitness score was 93.50, and if he had had any physical limitations, they surely would have been exposed during the rigorous medical screening process.

With regards to the psychological aspect of the LOA, the applicant states he achieved a 98.5 academic average—-well above what would be expected from someone having psychological or motivation issues. In addition, there was no identification of behavior or psychological issues mentioned anywhere--not even on his AETC Form 126A. He states he maintained his status in the top third of the flight and he consistently demonstrated standard and above standard performance in simulator training, and showed constant positive progression as illustrated in his Aviation Training Jacket.

To discount any plausible stress relating to psychological issues, he states he has been a volunteer firefighter for four years responding to several emergencies. He was put  in situations where he had to put his life on the line, saved the life of another human being, or had someone die in his hands. He states he was awarded the AFROTC Silver Valor Medal for Heroism for saving someone’s life.

He states there never was a Standard Form (SF) 502, Medical Narrative Summary, for his situation contained in his medical records. He further states there is no missing documentation as questioned by AETC/A3F; rather it was never there because the evaluation never happened.

He was seen by the flight surgeon for bronchitis and was subsequently prescribed four medications. Had he gone to the flight surgeon for an evaluation of MOA, he should not have received the medications as it is unethical and in some instances, illegal to unnecessarily prescribe medications unless the patient presents with the appropriate symptoms. In addition, the flight surgeon that saw him on 21 Jan 05 was an entirely different flight surgeon than the one who actually recommended his elimination from SUPT. In fact, there is no record of him ever actually seeing the flight surgeon that recommended his elimination until the day he was recommended for elimination-- the same day he went back to flight medicine to come off “duty not involving flying” (DNIF) status--25 Jan 05. The period 21-25 Jan 05 was only five days with two of those days being a Saturday and a Sunday.

The	applicant’s	complete	response,	with	attachments,	is	at Exhibit D.

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 error or injustice that would warrant restoring the applicant’s eligibility for flying status. We note that flight training is an extremely challenging and stressful environment that requires the student’s ability to concentrate and focus completely on his efforts. In addition, we note that airsickness is not uncommon, particularly in the earlier stages of flight training; however, we are convinced by the evidence at hand, that the applicant was unfairly evaluated. We considered granting the applicant’s request for reinstatement directly into Specialized Undergraduate Pilot Training (SUPT); however, we believe that because of the period of time since his expulsion and the rigorous nature of military flight training programs, it would be in the best interest of the Air Force and the applicant to allow him to reapply for pilot training in order to ensure he meets the demanding qualifications. Accordingly, we recommend that his records be corrected to the extent 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 AETC IMT Form 126A, Record of Commander’s Review Action, Section III, reflects “BE RECONSIDERED FOR REINSTATEMENT IN THIS COURSE AT A LATER DATE.”

The following members of the Board considered Docket Number BC- 2008-01566 in Executive Session on 19 August 2008, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603:

Panel Chair 
Member
Member

All members voted to correct the records, as recommended. The following documentary evidence pertaining to Docket Number BC- 2008-01566 was considered:

Exhibit A. DD form 149, w/atchs, dated 21 Apr 08.
Exhibit B. Memorandum, HQ AETC/A3F, w/atchs, dated 2 Jun 08. Exhibit C. Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 13 Jun 08.
Exhibit D. Applicant’s Rebuttal, w/atchs, dated 19 Jun 08.