RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS

IN THE MATTER OF:	DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2020-00833

XXXXXXXXXXXXX	COUNSEL: XXXXXXXXXXXXX 
		                      XXXXXXXXXXX

	HEARING REQUESTED: NO

APPLICANT’S REQUEST

His aviation qualification be restored.

APPLICANT’S CONTENTIONS

He completed the Undergraduate Pilot Training (UPT) on 8 Feb 07.  He became a C130 Aircraft Commander (AC) on 24 Jun 10.  On 12 Jun 12, he became a C-130H instructor pilot.  On 18 Jul 12, he was reassigned.  Upon reassignment, he served as an executive officer and aircraft planner for the C-130.  He was then accepted into the KC-10 Aircraft Commander Initial Qualification (ACIQ) course formal training program.  On 18 Jul 14, after 12 flights and 30 unsatisfactory graded events, he was recommended for a Progress Review Board (PRB).  The PRB unanimously recommended disenrolling him from the training.

On 23 Sep 14, a Flying Evaluation Board (FEB) was convened.  The applicant waived his right to have an FEB consider his qualification for continued aviation with the understanding he would be withdrawn from the ACIQ course for failure to meet the minimum course training requirements and he would be assigned to aircrew duties, for which he was qualified.  His waiver was denied.  On 10 Oct 14, the FEB members recommended the applicant: 

 	Remained disenrolled from further KC-10 ACIQ training;
Should not be enrolled in KC-10 copilot training;
Should be disqualified for rated service, without recommendation for a different airframe;  
	Be permitted to wear the aviation badge.

On 20 Mar 15, the convening authority concurred with the results of the FEB.  Through counsel, the applicant contends the Air Force made a material error by placing him in the KC-10 ACIQ  course when he should have been placed in the Pilot Initial Qualification (PIQ) course. 

At the time of selection, the applicant did not have the fundamental training necessary to fly as the aircraft commander; he had not flown aircraft in the previous two years, was not current on his basic flight ratings, and was not mission qualified on any aircraft.  He was an experienced C-130 pilot, aircraft commander, and instructor pilot with over 1000 flight hours, including 450 combat flight hours.  While he met the minimum requirements to enter the KC-10 ACIQ, it would have been in the best interest of the Air Force to place him in the KC-10 PIQ.  The C-130 is fundamentally different from the KC-10.  The differences and struggles pilots have between the two were highlighted multiple times during the Flying Evaluation Board (FEB).  

The Air Force also erred when those overseeing the KC-10 FTU program routinely waived the Air Force regulations without proper justification and without regard to training consistency.  AFI 11-2kc-10V1, A3.5 notes to ensure continuity of training, the number of different flight instructors are limited to a maximum of four students undergoing classification.  The squadron commander may waive the 4-instructor limit on a case-by-case basis.  The waivers, in his case, were detrimental.  He had flown with seven instructors with no break in training.  The waiver stated the limit was unable to be satisfied and instead, emphasis would be placed on the applicant’s flying continuity to accommodate his progression difficulties.  Continuity in training would have been more beneficial to the applicant.  The emphasis on flying continuity versus continuity of training was material error.  There is no requirement for flying continuity.

If an aircrew member has marginal potential for continued aviation service (cannot upgrade, history of poor check ride performance, or requires continuous additional supervision), the Board should recommend disqualification, in accordance with AFI 11-402.  The applicant had successfully upgraded from C-130 copilot to aircraft commander, and from aircraft commander to instructor pilot.  Prior to flying the KC-10, he had only failed one check ride in over 1000 hours of flight.  The finding that the applicant had marginal potential for continued aviation service when his C-130 record contradicts that is an injustice.  The Board should not have based its recommendation to disqualify him after a single incident disregarding an otherwise sound record.

The applicant’s complete submission is at Exhibit A.

STATEMENT OF FACTS

The applicant is currently serving in the Regular Air Force as a major (O-4).

On 27 Aug 14, Aeronautical Order Number XXXX, revoked AO Number XXXX and permanently disqualified the applicant from aviation service. 

For more information, see the excerpt of the applicant’s record at Exhibit B and the advisory at Exhibit C.

APPLICABLE AUTHORITY

Aviation qualification is not a right; it rests within the sole discretion of the approval authority.  Members remain qualified for aviation based on medical and professional qualification and potential to remain qualified in an aircraft.  Disqualification is an administrative action. AFI 11-402, Aviation and Parachutist Service, para 1.8.

AIR FORCE EVALUATION

AF/A3TM recommends denying the application.  The applicant was disqualified from flight service after demonstrating unacceptable performance and the inability to perform aircrew duties safely in the absence of supervision.  There has been no documentation submitted to show the decision of the Flying Evaluation Board, Convening Authority or the approval authority is unjust and warrants the overturn of their decision to permanently disqualify the applicant from aviation service. 

The complete advisory opinion is at Exhibit C.

APPLICANT’S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION

The Board sent a copy of the advisory opinion to the applicant on 2 Dec 20 and 6 Jan 21 for comment (Exhibit D), and the applicant replied through counsel in an undated response.  In the response, the applicant’s counsel reiterated the contentions from the original brief and further contends the FEB failed to provide sufficient rational to justify not transferring the applicant to the C-130. AFI 11-402 states if an aircrew member has marginal potential for continued aviation service, (e.g. cannot upgrade, has a history of poor checkride performance, or requires continuous additional supervision), the Board should recommend disqualification.  The applicant successfully upgraded from C-130 copilot to aircraft commander.  Prior to flying the KC-10, the applicant only had one failed checkride in over 1000 flight hours.  His flight record clearly rebuts the recommendations by the FEB. The applicant was severely prejudiced by the instructors disregard for the AFI regarding the continuity of training and he should be returned to the C-130 platform.  

The applicant’s complete response is at Exhibit E.

FINDINGS AND CONCLUSION

1.  The application was timely filed.

2.  The applicant exhausted all available non-judicial relief before applying to the Board.

3.  After reviewing all Exhibits, the Board concludes the applicant is not the victim of an error or injustice.  The Board concurs with the rationale and recommendation of AF/A3TM and finds a preponderance of the evidence does not substantiate the applicant’s contentions.  The Board notes, AFI 11-402, Aviation and Parachutist Service, states that aviation qualification is not a right; it rests within the sole discretion of the approval authority.  Members remain qualified for aviation based on medical and professional qualification and potential to remain qualified in an aircraft.  As such, the applicant has failed to provide sufficient evidence to show that the decision of the    the Flying Evaluation Board, Convening Authority or the approval authority is unjust and warrants that their decision to permanently disqualify the applicant be overturned.  Therefore, the Board recommends against correcting the applicant’s records.

4.  The applicant has not shown a personal appearance, with or without counsel, would materially add to the Board’s understanding of the issues involved.

RECOMMENDATION

The Board recommends informing the applicant the evidence did not demonstrate material error or injustice, and the Board will reconsider the application only upon receipt of relevant evidence not already presented.

CERTIFICATION

The following quorum of the Board, as defined in Air Force Instruction (AFI) 36-2603, Air Force Board for Correction of Military Records (AFBCMR), paragraph 1.5, considered Docket Number BC-2020-00833 in Executive Session on 7 Jan 20 and 30 Nov 2021:

, Panel Chair 
, Panel Member
, Panel Member

All members voted against correcting the record.  The panel considered the following:

Exhibit A:	Application, DD Form 149, w/atchs, dated 12 Feb 20.
Exhibit B:	Documentary evidence, including relevant excerpts from official records.
Exhibit C:	Advisory opinion, AF/A3TM, dated 30 Nov 21 and 6 Jan 21.
Exhibit D:	Notification of advisory, SAF/MRBC to applicant, dated 6 Jan 21 
Exhibit E:	Applicant’s response, undated.

Taken together with all Exhibits, this document constitutes the true and complete Record of Proceedings, as required by AFI 36-2603, paragraph 4.11.9.