RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 

AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS 

 

 

IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2012-02121 

 

 COUNSEL: NONE 

 

 HEARING DESIRED: YES 

 

_______________________________________________________________ 

 

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: 

 

He be reinstated as an F-16 pilot in the Oklahoma Air National 
Guard, effective 9 Jan 12. 

 

_______________________________________________________________ 

 

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: 

 

He was unfairly discharged due to an unwarranted Flight 
Evaluation Board (FEB) initiated on a single instrument flight 
check incident. 

 

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

 

_______________________________________________________________ 

 

STATEMENT OF FACTS: 

 

The applicant served in the Oklahoma Air National Guard in the 
grade of First Lieutenant (O-2) during the matter under review. 

 

On 12 Dec 11, upon the completion of an instrument check ride, 
a flight examiner determined the applicant did not properly fly 
his non-precision approaches and was not in a position to 
safely land. His flight was graded as a “Q2” (The aircrew 
member demonstrated the ability to perform duties safely, but: 
(1) There were one or more area(s)/subarea(s) where additional 
training was assigned. (2) A non-critical area/subarea grade 
of U was awarded. (3) In the judgment of the flight examiner, 
a Q2 may be given if there is justification based on Q-
performance in one or several areas/subareas), requiring him to 
undertake two instrument simulators as additional training 
support prior to his next flight 

 

On 20 Dec 11, the applicant was notified by his wing commander 
of his intent to recommend an FEB due to a “Lack of 
Proficiency” in flying basic instruments. Specifically, a 
determination was made that he displayed a lack of potential 
for continued aviation service due to a history of regression 
in basic and instrument flying skills, poor checkride 


performance, and an unacceptable risk of a Class A mishap while 
flying in instrument conditions. Furthermore, it was unlikely 
he would be able to progress and complete an upgrade program 
beyond wingman. 

 

On 20 Dec 11, the applicant acknowledged receipt of the action. 

 

On 9 Jan 12, the applicant was notified by his squadron 
commander of his intent to recommend his discharge from the 
Oklahoma Air National Guard for failure to achieve acceptable 
standards of proficiency required of an officer of the same 
grade. The specific reason for the action was a determination 
that he failed to live up to standards of basic instrument 
flying. 

 

On 9 Jan 12, the applicant acknowledged receipt of the action 
and, after consulting civilian counsel, waived his right to a 
hearing before an administrative board and elected not to 
submit a statement on his behalf. 

 

On 10 Jan 12, the applicant was honorably discharged from the 
Oklahoma Air National Guard and as a member of the Reserve of 
the Air Force with the authority and reason for his separation 
listed as “AFI 36-3209, Paragraph 2.34.: Substandard 
Performance of Duty – Applicable Paragraphs 2.34.1. through 
2.34.6., SPD: GHK.” He was credited with 3 years, 11 months, 
and 2 days of total service for pay. 

 

_______________________________________________________________ 

 

AIR FORCE EVALUATION: 

 

NGB/A1PS recommends approval, indicating there is no compelling 
documentation warranting the involuntary discharge from the Air 
National Guard as a result of an F-16 qualification check-ride 
accomplished on 12 Dec 11. The result of the checkride 
warranted additional training but, by itself, was not 
reasonable cause for a discharge. If the added training was 
unsatisfactory and he had further documented difficulties, an 
FEB would have been warranted. In most cases, additional 
training would have been accomplished and the member returned 
to unrestricted flight status. In this case, without the 
opportunity for additional training and, if required, a FEB, 
the isolated incident on 12 Dec 11 did not warrant an 
involuntary separation. 

 

A complete copy of the NGB/A1PS evaluation is at Exhibit C. 

 

NGB/A3O recommends approval, indicating the results of the 
applicant’s check-ride warranted additional training instead of 
an involuntary discharge for flying capabilities. 

 

 

 


A complete copy of the NGB/A3O evaluation is at Exhibit D. 

 

_______________________________________________________________ 

 

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: 

 

Copies of the Air Force evaluations were forwarded to the 
applicant on 20 Dec 12 for review and comment within 30 days. 
As of this date, no response has been received by this office 
(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 error or injustice. After a 
thorough review of the evidence of record and the applicant’s 
complete submission, we believe the applicant has raised 
sufficient doubt for us to call in to question the basis for 
his discharge from the Air National Guard (ANG). In this 
respect, we note the comments from the NGB/A3O indicating that 
although there were noted difficulties with the applicant’s 
instrument flying, the 12 December 2011 single check-ride 
evaluation, in and of itself, was not sufficient to form the 
basis of his involuntary discharge from the ANG. In our view, 
the applicant should have been provided additional training to 
correct the noted deficiencies prior to being considered for 
discharge from the ANG for this single incident. We note that 
reinstatement in the ANG is among the applicant’s requests. 
However, inasmuch as the Board lacks the authority to reinstate 
applicants into the ANG, we believe the proper and fitting 
relief in this case would be to correct his NGB Form 22, National Guard Bureau Report of Separation and Record of 
Service, to reflect the Authority and Reason for Separation and 
separation program designator (SPD) code was “Secretarial 
Authority” and “KFF,” respectively. With this recommendation, 
the applicant is free to pursue his reappointment to ANG or Air 
Force Reserve, provided he is otherwise qualified, in 
accordance with the provisions of AFI 36-2005, Appointment 
in Commissioned Grades and Designation and Assignment in 
Professional Categories – Reserve of the Air Force and United 
States Air Force. Therefore, to preclude any further injustice 
to the applicant, we recommend his records be corrected to the 
extent indicated below. 

 

_______________________________________________________________ 

 


THE BOARD RECOMMENDS THAT: 

 

The pertinent military records of the Department of the Air 
Force relating to the APPLICANT be corrected to show that his 
NGB Form 22, National Guard Bureau Report of Separation and 
Record of Service, be corrected to reflect the authority and 
reason for separation and separation program designator (SPD) 
code was “Secretarial Authority” and “KFF,” respectively. 

 

_______________________________________________________________ 

 

The following members of the Board considered AFBCMR Docket 
Number BC-2012-02121 in Executive Session on 28 Feb 13 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 AFBCMR Docket 
Number BC-2012-02121 was considered: 

 

 Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 14 May 12, w/atchs. 

 Exhibit B. Applicant's Master Personnel Records. 

 Exhibit C. Letter, NGB/A1PS, dated 2 Jul 12, w/atch. 

 Exhibit D. Letter, NGB/A3O, dated 27 Sep 12. 

 

 

 

 

 

 Panel Chair