RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS

IN THE MATTER OF:	DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2021-03358

XXXXXXXXXXXXXX	COUNSEL: NONE
	 
  	HEARING REQUESTED: YES 

APPLICANT’S REQUEST

His pilot status and wings be reinstated.  

APPLICANT’S CONTENTIONS

He voluntarily resigned his wings in lieu of a flying evaluation board (VILO FEB).  He believed he would not receive a fair trial at the FEB.  

He was a C-130J aircraft pilot in the Air National Guard (ANG) when he was notified of a FEB for failure to complete unit indoctrination training, despite finishing the gradebook and all proficiency items.  The unit indoctrination program included unclear expectations, poor documentation and insufficient flying hours.  He was given vague guidance for seven months until he reached the time limit.  He obtained 100 percent proficiency in all quarterly, semi-annual and annual proficiency items.  He never failed a check ride, was not involved in any aircraft accident nor disciplined for any actions.  The training program was not administered in the best interest of the Air Force and squadron members alluded it was a practice of the unit to force pilots at the beginning of their long service commitment to forfeit their wings.   

He opted to VILO FEB since the unit arbitrarily conducted FEBs on pilots for unclear reasons, the unit’s culture was toxic, personal interactions with instructors selected to be witnesses at the FEB caused him to lose faith that the trial would be fair, a favorable outcome would result in reprisal and the nature of the FEB lacked accountability and oversight.  

During his 11 months of training in the ANG airlift squadron (AS), he received an average of 12.1 flight hours a month while the average for mobility pilots was 17.6.  After seven weeks of sparse training, he received an unsatisfactory grade for crosswind landing.  He was subjected to additional scrutiny and unnecessary assessments for six months.  He flew 25 sorties with good ratings, despite multiple stretches of two weeks between sorties.  He inquired about his progress but was only told he needed more experience.

On 31 Aug 17, a month after completing his indoctrination gradebook, he received an unsatisfactory grade from a hostile instructor.  The instructor incorrectly configured his mask and was unable to communicate.  He then had an outburst of anger and started screaming.  The instructor triggered a collision warning with the lead aircraft, and he was unsuccessful in completing the airdrop sortie.  The instructor wrote in the gradebook that he had made a bunch of excuses and was evasive when asked general knowledge questions.  He has flown over 1,000 hours since and it is unthinkable for an aircraft commander to talk during air traffic control (ATC) instructions.  He received “good” grades on the following 18 consecutive rides, culminating in 45.7 flight hours during the following four months.  This included flying through the outer bands of Hurricane Maria at night and assault landings and takeoffs in Saint Croix and Saint Thomas at dawn.  The standard/evaluation officer he flew a sortie with wrote in his gradebook that he did not understand why he was still in indoctrination.  Despite this, the airlift squadron commander (AS/CC) would not sign off on the completion of indoctrination nor allow him to take a check ride.  

The AS/CC refused to give him a check ride but insisted the flight be a progress check.  The AS/CC advised he would be given a choice between a VILO and FEB.  The justification was that he could not even plan a basic low-level sortie.  The AS/CC’s feedback was frustrating, and the arbitrary indoctrination metric embraced a subjective culture with no accountability.  Failure in this program resulted in pilots losing their wings at the beginning of their lengthy commitments, but the leadership had zero consequences.

He was notified of the FEB the morning after the flight with the AS/CC.  He did not believe he would receive a favorable outcome at the FEB and if he was successful, he would still be in the same squadron with the same people.  As a result, he decided to turn in his wings voluntarily.  After resigning his wings, he transferred to the civil engineer squadron (CES).  The unit made it extremely difficult to leave and the CES would not hire him until an officer performance report (OPR) was accomplished.  His repeated requests to get a completed OPR went ignored and it took the CES leadership almost a year to get the required signatures from the AS for his reassignment.  He formally requested his records through the automated aircrew management system (AAMS) but has not received them, despite assertions that all records are retained indefinitely.  

The Air Force has everything to gain by reinstating his wings.  He graduated from the Euro-NATO Jet Pilot Training in Sep 15 and the C-130J Maintenance and Aircrew Training System Course in Feb 17.  He has 2,000 flight hours, all incident free.  His current unit has positions for rated staff officers.  He has a unique background as a civil engineer.  He is a combat veteran with 150 missions on the ground in Afghanistan and is an airline pilot with over 2,000 hours.  His civilian flying career would support a transition to an Air Mobility Command (AMC) flight deck.  The Air Force has already invested in the cost of his training.  It is in the best interest to reinstate his wings.  

The applicant provides letters of recommendation in support of his request.  A memorandum for record provided by a former member of the AS dated 27 Sep 21 states the ability of the AS to successfully develop its pilots into successful first pilots and aircraft commanders left much to be desired.  He understands why the applicant opted to VILO FEB and why he perceived he did not have a fair opportunity to defend himself, or that there would be reprisal if there was favorable outcome.    The critiques of the leadership were rote by junior pilots and the subjectivity of training culminated in an unfair and capricious training environment where new pilots could lose their wings at significant cost to the Air Force based on a system without metrics and graded by instructors who operated in their positions with minimal effort.  He is aware of two other pilots who were the subjects of FEBs before completing unit indoctrination training, despite successfully complete undergraduate pilot training (UPT) and follow-on formal training.  

The applicant’s complete submission is at Exhibit A.

STATEMENT OF FACTS

The applicant is a major (O-4) in the Air Force Reserve.  

On 30 May 13, the applicant resigned his commission and was honorably discharged from the Regular Air Force with narrative reason for separation of completion of required active service.
On 31 May 13, the applicant was commissioned in the Air National Guard (ANG).  

Per Aeronautical Order (AO) dated 3 Oct 14, the applicant was enrolled in undergraduate pilot training (UPT) on 28 Aug 14 and met all requirements to be placed on flying status.  The applicant aviation service was initiated, and he was entitled to Aviation Career Incentive Pay (ACIP).  

Per AO Number, dated 6 Oct 15, the applicant successfully completed UPT on 25 Sep 15.

On 31 Jan 18, according to ANGRC/JA, the applicant was notified a FEB would be convened on 20 Feb 18 per AFI 11-402, Aviation and Parachutist Service, Aeronautical Ratings and Aviation Badges, concerning his qualifications as a C-130J pilot and make recommendations regarding his future service in flying duties.  It was alleged the applicant could not proficiently and safely execute the duties required of a C-130J pilot.  The AMC would have the final decision authority.  The applicant reviewed the letter and on 31 Jan 18 submitted his intent to apply for VILO FEB.  

On 1 Feb 18, according to ANGRC/JA, the applicant requested his VILO FEB in accordance with AFI 11-402.  He stated he understood the voluntary disqualification from aviation service was permanent and that he would be prohibited from wearing the aviation badge.  The AS/CC recommended granting the applicant’s request based on best interest of the Air Force due to his lack of proficiency required to complete the C-130J Mission Certification training.  

On 1 Feb 18, the applicant’s Wing Commander notified him of his suspension from aviation service effective 1 Feb 18 and that his flight pay would be terminated the day prior to the effective date of his suspension.  

Per AO, dated 3 Feb 18, the applicant was suspended from aviation service and his Aviation Career Incentive Pay (ACIP) was terminated, effective 1 Feb 18. 

On 2 Aug 18, Counsel to ANGRC found the VILO FEB case file to be legally sufficient and recommended acceptance of the applicant’s request for voluntary disqualification from aviation service in lieu of the FEB.  

Per Special Order, dated 21 Mar 19, the applicant was honorably discharged from the ANG, effective 21 Jan 19 and transferred to the Air Force Reserve, effective 22 Jan 19.  

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

APPLICABLE AUTHORITY/GUIDANCE

AFI 11-402, Aviation and Parachutist Service, Aeronautical Ratings and Aviation Badges, Failure to meet academic of flying standards while enrolled in Air Force directed formal flying training course requires an examination of the aircrew member’s potential for continued aviation service.  An FEB evaluates retention or removal from training and potential for continued aviation service.  After being notified of the FEB, a member may request a voluntary disqualification from aviation service in lieu of an FEB.  

AIR FORCE EVALUATION

NGB/A1PS provided the Airlift Wing’s (AW) Legal Review of the applicant’s Voluntary Disqualification from Aviation Serve in Lieu of (VILO) of FEB memorandum, dated 22 Mar 18 and the ANGRC/JA Legal Review dated 2 Aug 18.

The applicant requested VILO in accordance with AFI 11-402.  The applicant was a qualified pilot in the ANG and received an aeronautical rating as a mobility pilot in the C-130J aircraft on 24 Sep 15. His pilot unit indoctrination/mission certification training began on 24 Mar 17.  Training instructors repeatedly rated his progress as below average.  It was noted the applicant struggled with mission timing, checklist accomplishment, crew coordination and pilot monitoring duties.  On 20 Jun 17, the applicant was issued a time extension but continued to struggle.  His efforts to attain the proficiency required to complete mission certification training proved unsuccessful.  During the 23 Jan 18 progress check and expiration of the training extension waiver, the applicant was notified he would not be submitted for a headquarters waiver and notified on 31 Jan 18 he would be subject to a FEB scheduled to convene on 20 Feb 18 and that he was suspended from aviation service in accordance with AFI 11-402.  On 1 Feb 18, the applicant, after exercising his right to consult with counsel, submitted a VILO FEB request in accordance with AFI 11-402.  His commander supported the request as best interest of the Air Force and the VILO request was found legally sufficient.

The Commander’s Progress Review states the applicant on 23 Jan 18 was administered a progress check by the AS/CC and that the applicant did not meet requirements and was graded unsatisfactory overall.  Upon review of his entire grade book and consultation with senior instructor pilots and leadership, a determination was made that the applicant failed to progress and failed mission certification training in the allotted unit time training.  The AS/CC did not recommend continuation.  

On 2 Aug 18, the ANGRC/JA found the VILO FEB to permanently disqualify the applicant from aviation service was legally sufficient.  

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 27 Jun 22 for comment (Exhibit D.  The applicant provided email responses dated 29 Jun 22 and 8 Jul 22.  He provides email and letter of recommendation from his training flight commander.  He has been denied copies of his flight records, especially his indoctrination training reports, multiple times.  He provides his AF Forms 8, Certificate of Aircrew Qualification, dated 9 Nov 16 and 28 Feb 17; and AF Form 942, Record of Evaluation, showing he successfully completed training without recommendations for additional training.    

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 reviewed the letters of support and appreciates the applicant’s desire for reinstatement of his flight status; however, he has provided insufficient evidence to warrant granting his request.  In this respect, the Board notes the applicant submitted a VILO FEB on 1 Feb 18 in accordance with AFI 11-402 and acknowledged he understood his voluntary disqualification from aviation service was permanent.  While the applicant contends, he voluntarily resigned his wings due to his belief he would not receive a fair trial at a FEB or that he would be reprised against if the FEB found him qualified for aviation service, he has provided insufficient evidence to sustain his contention.  The Board found no evidence the applicant was reprised against or that he was unfairly targeted for elimination from flying training.  Moreover, on 22 Mar 18, the wing staff judge advocate determined the applicant’s VILO FEB was legally sufficient and in accordance with AFI 11-402.  The Board does not know why the applicant’s requests for copies of his flight records were denied and recommends he contact the unit or NGB for assistance in obtaining copies of his flight records.  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-2021-03358 in Executive Session on 12 Jul 22 and 19 Jul 22:

 , 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 16 Oct 21.
Exhibit B:	Documentary evidence, including relevant excerpts from official records.
Exhibit C:	Legal Review VILO FEB, w/atchs, dated 22 Mar 18.  
Exhibit D:	Notification of Advisory, SAF/MRBC to Applicant, dated 27 Jun 22.
Exhibit E: Applicant’s response, w/atchs, dated 29 Jun 22.   

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.