RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2011-02211 COUNSEL: NO HEARING DESIRED: YES _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: His Air Education and Training Command (AETC) Form 126A, Record of Commander’s Review Action, be amended to include the remarks of the Eliminating Authority recommending him for consideration for reinstatement into Undergraduate Pilot Training (UPT) at a later date. _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: The AETC Form 126A does not reflect the true intent of the Eliminating Authority by not giving the Eliminating Authority the same recommendation options as the Reviewing Authority. The AETC Form 126A has now been edited to include these options for the Eliminating Authority on the new AETC Form 139. In support of his appeal, the applicant provides copies of a memorandum from his Eliminating Authority, his AETC Form 126A, and a blank AETC Form 139. The applicant’s complete submission, with attachments, is at Exhibit A. _________________________________________________________________ STATEMENT OF FACTS: The applicant is currently serving on active duty in the grade of captain (O-3). The remaining relevant facts, extracted from the applicant’s master service records, are contained in the evaluation by the Air Force office of primary responsibility at Exhibit B. _________________________________________________________________ AIR FORCE EVALUATION: AETC/A3F recommends denial. A3F states that as described in AETC Instruction 36-2205, Formal Aircrew Training Administration and Management, and reiterated in the Specialized Undergraduate Pilot Training (SUPT) syllabus, once a student meets elimination criteria, they are placed in the Commander’s Review (CR) process. This initial CR action is the responsibility of the Flying Training Squadron Commander (Initiating Authority) and documented on the AETC Form 126A. Next in the chain of command, the Operations Group Commander (Reviewing Authority) reviews the student training, interviews the student, and provides a student disposition recommendation on the AETC Form 126A to the final Approving Authority (normally the Wing Commander or his deputy). The Approving Authority can reinstate or approve elimination. AETC Instruction 36-2205 states the Approval Authority will complete the AETC Form 126A annotating any recommendations for follow-on training for the student. One restriction specified in the instruction is pilot training eliminees will not be recommended for entry into any other SUPT track. A3F indicates that in this case, the Operations Group Commander recommended the applicant for elimination, but checked the block on the AETC Form 126A showing the student should be considered for reinstatement at a later date. The underlying supposition was the applicant did not have the potential to continue in the fighter/bomber track due to failure in the formation phase, but should be considered for the T-1 Airlift/Tanker advanced JSUPT track. At the time of the Approving Authority’s final review and signature, the Vice Wing Commander approved the elimination without making any recommendations as to student disposition or further training. It is assumed these individuals chose to go against MAJCOM published instructions because they felt strongly that the policy should not be applied to the applicant. However, empathetic opinions do not change the unequivocal policy guidance that students eliminated from training will not be placed in another track. A3F states that based on the examination of the available documentation, there is no evidence of error or injustice substantiating a reinstatement for further flight training. Therefore, they must recommend the applicant’s record stand as written. However, if the decision is to grant the requested relief, the applicant’s elimination record from SUPT should be expunged to allow him to compete for an ANG training quota providing he remains otherwise qualified for aircrew training. Because of the four year plus gap in training, if reentered into SUPT, recommend the applicant begin with a new pilot training class. The complete A3F evaluation is at Exhibit B. _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: All of the information in the Air Force advisory opinion is absolutely true. The synopsis of his performance in the T-38 advanced track is correct; however, it does not accurately portray the situation or his capability in the cockpit. Much of his sub-standard performance early in training was due to airsickness. Active episodes were the cause of multiple unsatisfactory flights, but more than that, it simply affected his ability to learn, retain, and perform. However, with determination and some impressive dedication by the Aerospace Physiology Unit at Vance Air Force Base, he was able to finally overcome this setback. He is pursuing a flying career with the Air National Guard (ANG) as it better fits with his other passions, life goals, and family plans. He was selected for an HC-130 pilot slot by the Alaska ANG in April 2009 and had made plans to separate on 20 April 2009 to attend UPT again. However, he was notified by the National Guard Bureau and AETC/A3F on 19 April 2009 that according to AETC Instruction 36-2205, he was ineligible. He agrees with the decision of his elimination from the T-38 program as he did not meet the excellence required of a combat aviator; however, he does posses the skills to lead a crew and to be a capable pilot in the Air Force. The applicant’s complete rebuttal 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. 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 agree with the opinion and recommendation of the Air Force office 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. While we note the applicant’s continued desire to pursue a flying career, we have not found he has been treated differently than others similarly situated. Therefore, in the absence of evidence to the contrary, we find no 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-2011-02211 in Executive Session on 23 February 2012, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603: The following documentary evidence pertaining to AFBCMR Docket Number BC-2011-02211 was considered: Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 1 Jun 11, w/atchs. Exhibit B. Letter, AETC/A3F, dated 19 Jul 11. Exhibit C. Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 29 Jul 11. Exhibit D. Letter, Applicant, dated 20 Aug 11.