MEMORANDUM OF CONSIDERATION

	IN THE CASE OF:   

	BOARD DATE:           21 December 1999                   
	DOCKET NUMBER:   AR1999028793

	I certify that hereinafter is recorded the record of consideration of the Army Board for Correction of Military Records in the case of the above-named individual.

	Mr. Loren G. Harrell		Director	
	Mrs. Nancy Amos		Analyst	

  The following members, a quorum, were present:

	Mr. Hubert O. Fry, Jr.		Chairperson	
	Ms. Meta Waller		Member	
	Ms. Debra Williams		Member	

	The Board, established pursuant to authority contained in 10 U.S.C. 1552, convened at the call of the Chairperson on the above date.  In accordance with Army Regulation 15-185, the application and the available military records pertinent to the corrective action requested were reviewed to determine whether to authorize a formal hearing, recommend that the records be corrected without a formal hearing, or to deny the application without a formal hearing if it is determined that insufficient relevant evidence has been presented to demonstrate the existence of probable material error or injustice.

	The applicant requests correction of military records as stated in the application to the Board and as restated herein.

	The Board considered the following evidence:

	Exhibit A - Application for correction of military 
                records
	Exhibit B - Military Personnel Records (including
	     advisory opinion, if any)

APPLICANT REQUESTS:  Reconsideration of his request that the findings of the Flying Evaluation Board (FEB) be overturned and that his Article 15 and disqualification from wearing the Army Aviator Badge (AAB) be expunged from his records.  He also requests that another FEB be convened for an assignment to the reserve components.

APPLICANT STATES:  That he has five contentions:  1.  The FEB processed him for undesirable habits or traits of character.  This means he was emotionally unstable or had inherent undesirable personality traits that affected his flying duty.  Nothing in his case involved flying.  2.  His DA Form 759-1 had incorrect entries and the DA For 2408-12 in question could not be found.  He was made a scapegoat for the unit’s shortcomings in record keeping.  3.  The Staff Judge Advocate (SJA) intervened after the board met and changed the board’s findings without letting him know.  4.  The AAB can only be revoked due to flagrant violations of flying regulations, not for undesirable habits or traits.  5.  His flight records did not even show him as logging one flight hour for the year in question.  He was held accountable for something beyond his control.

NEW EVIDENCE OR INFORMATION:  Incorporated herein by reference are military records which were summarized in a memorandum prepared to reflect the Board's original consideration of his case 6 February 1991 (COPY ATTACHED).  

The applicant submits as new evidence:  A 14 May 1993 letter from the Office of the Deputy Chief of Staff for Personnel (DCSPER) which confirms regulatory policy regarding revocation of the AAB.  Inspector General findings dated          25 August 1993 that recommend he request re-instatement of his AAB based upon DCSPER’s 14 May 1993 letter.  An extract of Army Regulation (AR) 600-105, which states that once an aeronautical rating is awarded it becomes a part of the officer’s credentials.  It can be removed by the general court-martial convening authority in taking final action on an FEB.  An extract of AR 600-8-22 concerning revocation of the AAB.  Eight DA Forms 759, Flying Hours Work Sheet.

AR 600-105 sets policy, responsibilities and procedures for qualifying and disqualifying officers for aviation service and describes conditions for disqualification or termination of aviation service.  One of the reasons for convening an FEB is for flagrant violation of flying regulations.  This may show a lack of judgment or proficiency that renders the officer unfit or unqualified to perform flying duties.  Another reason is undesirable habits or traits of character, where evidence shows the officer is emotionally unstable or has inherent undesirable personality traits that may affect the officer’s duties as an aviation officer.  (Webster’s Third New International Dictionary, unabridged defines “inherent” as “belonging by nature or settled habit.”)
AR 600-8-22 provides policy and criteria concerning individual military decorations, combat and special skill badges.  In pertinent part, it states that the AAB may be revoked when Headquarters, Department of the Army (HQDA) has approved the findings of an FEB that the awardee was guilty of cowardice, refusal to fly, fear of flying or fear of combat or an act constituting a flagrant violation of flying regulations.

DISCUSSION:  Considering all the evidence, allegations, and information presented by the applicant, together with the evidence of record, applicable law and regulations, it is concluded:

1.  The FEB’s initial findings were “…evidence presented sustains and supports a manifestation of undesirable habits and character flows.  He does not posses (sic) the characteristics of trust so vital in the hazardous environment aviators must operate in daily" and the FEB’s revised findings were “…does not possess the characteristics of trust so vital in the hazardous environment aviators must operate in on a daily basis.”  Since the applicant had previously received several counseling statements and a letter of reprimand for lateness, absenteeism, deceit, violation of integrity and substandard performance (a “ settled habit”), the Board finds the FEB’s finding of undesirable habits or traits of character was appropriate.  The Board agrees with the FEB’s findings that these habits or traits are important and do negatively impact on flying duties.

2.  The Board notes that the incident precipitating the FEB and the Article 15 was the applicant altering a document to show he was night vision goggle (NVG) current when he copiloted a NVG mission on 27 October 1987.  As the revised findings also state “If he was not sure, he violated the “Thurman Sends” message regarding crew currency, qualification and commander’s brief back policy,” the Board concludes that that incident constituted a flagrant violation of flying regulations and that HQDA also made this conclusion when they revoked his AAB.

3.  The applicant has provided no evidence to show that his DA Form 759-1 had incorrect entries and the DA Form 2408-12 in question could not be found or that he was made a scapegoat for the unit’s shortcomings in record keeping.

4.  The Board disagrees with the applicant’s contention that the SJA intervened after the FEB met and changed the board’s findings without letting him know.
The SJA’s second legal review dated 25 March 1988 noted that the findings had been served on the defense for comment.

5.  Because the Board concludes that the applicant’s altering of a document to show he was night vision goggle (NVG) current when he copiloted a NVG mission on 27 October 1987 constituted a flagrant violation of flying regulations, the Board finds that the revocation of his AAB was appropriate.
6.  The Board concludes the applicant has not shown any significant relevance of how his flight records not showing him as logging one flight hour for the year in question pertains to his requested relief.

7.  The overall merits of the case, including the latest submissions and arguments are insufficient as a basis for the Board to reverse its previous decision.

8.  In view of the foregoing, there is no basis for granting the applicant's request.

DETERMINATION:  The applicant has failed to submit
sufficient relevant evidence to demonstrate the existence of probable error or injustice.

BOARD VOTE:

________  ________  ________  GRANT

________  ________  ________  GRANT FORMAL HEARING

__hof___  __mw____  __dw____  DENY APPLICATION

						Loren G. Harrell
						Director

INDEX

CASE ID	AR1999028793	
SUFFIX		
RECON		
DATE BOARDED	19991221	
TYPE OF DISCHARGE		
DATE OF DISCHARGE		
DISCHARGE AUTHORITY		
DISCHARGE REASON		
BOARD DECISION	(DENY)	
REVIEW AUTHORITY		
ISSUES         1.	115.02	
2.		
3.		
4.		
5.		
6.