RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 

 AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS 

 

IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2011-00606 

 

 COUNSEL: NONE 

 

 HEARING DESIRED: NO 

 

________________________________________________________________ 

 

THE APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: 

 

His AETC 126A, Record of Commander’s Review Action, be expunged 
from his records and he be able to return to the Undergraduate 
Pilot Training (UPT) program. 

 

________________________________________________________________ 

 

THE APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: 

 

The AETC Form 126A (Elimination paperwork and AFI's) did not 
allow for a gracious exodus from UPT. Students were either 
eliminated, medically disqualified or by self-initiated 
elimination (SIE). SIE has always been treated as a very black 
and white situation and thus prevented students, with very valid 
reasons for leaving UPT, from returning. The new procedures and 
AETC Form 139, Record of Commander's Review Action 
(Undergraduate Pilot Training) now allows for other options and 
leaves the return to UPT up to the discretion of the UPT 
commander. Had it been in use at the time of his elimination 
from pilot training, the AETC Form 139, Section III could have 
been used for his situation. The form states, "If recommended 
for elimination, the student should be considered for 
reinstatement in this course at a later date due to extenuating 
circumstances.” 

 

He notes the circumstances which led to his decision to self 
eliminate or Drop-On-Request (DOR). In Sep 04, his father 
passed away, his mother was mentally-ill, and being the only 
son, he accepted administrative leave for six months to take 
care of his father’s affairs. However, after returning to UPT, 
he came to the decision, because of all of the extenuating 
circumstances with his mother, sister, father’s estate and other 
personal situations, he could no longer handle what was going on 
at home and concentrate on his training too, which started 
affecting his performance, so he requested to SIE and resigned 
his commission. 

 

Subsequent to his resignation, he married and had a son, his 
mother passed away, and he was promoted in his Air National 
Guard (ANG) unit to the grade of technical sergeant (TSgt/E-7). 


He later was assigned to an Active Guard Reserve (AGR) position 
with his unit. 

 

In support of his appeal, the applicant provides a personal 
statement; a copy of his father’s death certificate, and a 
letter of recommendation from his ANG squadron commander. 

 

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

 

________________________________________________________________ 

 

STATEMENT OF FACTS: 

 

The relevant facts pertaining to this application, extracted 
from the applicant’s military records, are contained in the 
letter prepared by the appropriate office of the Air Force. 

 

________________________________________________________________ 

 

THE AIR FORCE EVALUATION: 

 

AETC/A3F recommends denial, stating, in part, based on their 
examination of available documentation, they found no evidence 
of error or injustice substantiating a reinstatement of 
eligibility for further flight training and recommend the 
applicant's record stand as written. 

 

 

On 14 Feb, the applicant initiated DOR/SIE as documented by a 
counseling entry in his grade book by his assigned Flight 
Commander. At this time, the applicant said 'YES' to question 
if outside factors were affecting training. No further 
explanation of the outside factors was provided. The applicant 
was subsequently counseled by the 84th Flying Training Squadron 
Commander on 16, 17, and 18 Feb. 

 

Students who make a decision to DOR are ineligible to apply (or 
reapply) in accordance with (IAW) AFI 36-2205, Applying for 
Flying and Astronaut Training Programs, Figure 1.1; the 
applicant was rendered ineligible to apply for any flying 
training course because of the SIE which occurred during pilot 
training. This guidance is reiterated in AETCI 36-2205, Volume 
4, Formal Flying Training Administration and Management- Tool, 
which states, "Students eliminated for MOA [manifestations of 
apprehension) or DOR previously SIE will not be recommended for 
any other flying training. 

 

The applicant makes specific reference to the new AETC Form 139. 
The Form 139 did replace Form 126A in 2009. The new form was 
designed specifically for undergraduate pilot training, whereas 
the older form was 'universally' applied for all undergraduate 
and graduate training programs. The new form requires 
commanders to provide specific information and justification for 


recommendations for elimination, or retention in training as 
applicable. In the applicant's case, the new form could have 
been used following his father's death. In this set of 
circumstances an individual could be eliminated from training, 
with a provision for reinstatement at a later date. However, the 
ANG unit, with acquiesce of the AETC training unit, recalled the 
applicant from training for approximately 5 months calling it 
'administrative leave'. Even without the new AETC Form 139, 
recall by the home unit under any circumstance requires 
elimination from training, with specified notification and 
coordination with HQ AETC/ A3F, IAW AETCI 36-2205, Volume 4. The 
policy guidance was not followed in this case. Placing these 
facts aside, the applicant was provided 5 months to deal with 
his father's funeral and family difficulties. Upon his return 
to training, he was provided spin-up training to refresh his 
knowledge and skills. However, his previous problems with 
airsickness returned. Appropriate supervisory and Flight 
Surgeon attention was brought to bear on the situation. It is a 
fact some individuals can adapt and overcome airsickness. But 
given the constraints of the syllabus, many individuals cannot 
adapt and are eliminated from training. In this case, the 
applicant elected to SIE from training. The policy guidance for 
those individuals who self eliminate from flying training is 
clear and consistent in AF and AETC instructions. AETC/A3F 
notes, flight training is a risk-inherent, resource-intensive 
undertaking. Students must be motivated and single-minded in 
this environment. Students cannot make decisions at a whim-both 
from the standpoint of training costs incurred by the government 
and taxpayers, as well as risk to life-and-limb for students and 
instructors. Capricious behavior cannot be tolerated in a risk 
environment. From a cost and risk perspective, it makes little 
sense to reenter individuals into training who have previously 
failed or who quit. 

 

FY05 data indicates 40 officers voluntarily withdrew from 
primary training across the Specialized Undergraduate Pilot 
Training () bases. The point being it is not uncommon for 
individuals to DOR from pilot training for a variety of reasons. 
It is also certain from the number of requests this office 
reviews for exception to policy, or AFBCMR applications, there 
are many individuals who desire a second chance in pilot 
training. However, AF and AETC policy makes these individual 
ineligible for further training. The documentation shows the 
applicant was thoroughly counseled by his supervisor and 
commander on the permanent effect of SIE from flying training 
programs. With full knowledge of the consequences, the 
applicant elected to SIE from training. The applicant must 
assume responsibility for, and endure the consequences of his 
action. 

 

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

 


________________________________________________________________ 

 

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF THE AIR FORCE EVALUATION: 

 

The applicant notes that he is committed and dedicated to 
completing UPT. He does not take his pursuit to reenter the 
program lightly and is aware that many people are investing 
their time in making a decision about his re-admittance and is 
truly thankful. 

 

He indicates that he does not believe it was the constraints of 
the syllabus that kept him from immediately overcoming 
airsickness, but rather severe emotional duress. He believes 
anyone who has lost a parent to a sudden death would understand 
that the grief process requires more than a 5 months period to 
recuperate and perform properly in their line of work or study. 
He notes the evidence lies in the fact that he was doing well in 
the program up until his father’s death. His scores were among 
the highest ever on the Pilot Candidate Selection Method (PCSM) 
aptitude tests (99th percentile) and his academic performance was 
above average. 

 

His ANG wing has confidently selected him to fill their pilot 
slot with the full knowledge of his history with pilot training. 
He has the support of his commanders who are willing to 
recommend him with confidence. 

 

The applicant’s complete response 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. Insufficient relevant evidence has been presented to 
demonstrate the existence of error or injustice. We took notice 
of the applicant's complete submission, including the letters of 
support submitted in the applicant’s behalf, in judging the 
merits of the case. The Board is not unsympathetic to the 
circumstances which led to the applicant’s decision to SIE and 
notes his response to the AF evaluation; however, we agree with 
the opinion and recommendation of the Air Force office of 
primary responsibility and adopt its rationale as the basis for 
our conclusion that the applicant has not been the victim of an 
error or injustice. Therefore, in the absence of evidence to 
the contrary, we find no basis to recommend granting the relief 
sought in this application. 

 

________________________________________________________________ 

 


THE BOARD DETERMINES THAT: 

 

The applicant be notified the evidence presented did not 
demonstrate the existence of material error or injustice; the 
application was denied without a personal appearance; and 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-2011-00606 in Executive Session on 13 September 2011, 
under the provisions of AFI 36-2603: 

 

The following documentary evidence was considered: 

 

 Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 14 Jan 11, w/atchs. 

 Exhibit B. Applicant's Master Personnel Records. 

 Exhibit C. Letter, AETC/A3F, dated 6 Apr 11, w/atchs. 

 Exhibit D. Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 15 Apr 11. 

 Exhibit E. Letter, Applicant, undated. 

 

 

 

 

 Panel Chair