A Flight Evaluation Board is an administrative proceeding that can result in the loss of aviation qualifications regardless of whether any criminal charges have been filed. The FEB operates under its own regulatory framework, applies its own standard of proof, and makes findings that are independent of any criminal proceeding that may be running concurrently or that may never be initiated at all. A pilot whose performance, conduct, or judgment has been called into question can lose their wings through this process based on a preponderance of the evidence standard that is far lower than what a criminal conviction requires.
The independence of the FEB from the criminal process means that a pilot facing investigation must consider both tracks simultaneously. Actions taken or statements made in one proceeding can have consequences in the other. The strategy for preserving aviation qualifications may not be identical to the strategy for defending against criminal charges, and in some cases those strategies can conflict. Retaining counsel with experience in both areas is essential for navigating both proceedings without inadvertently damaging one case while protecting the other.
What a Flight Evaluation Board Is and Who Convenes It
A Flight Evaluation Board is an administrative proceeding convened by the appropriate authority within each branch’s aviation chain of command for the purpose of evaluating whether a military aviator should retain their qualification status. The FEB is not a criminal proceeding and does not produce a criminal record. It is an administrative determination about fitness to continue performing aviation duties, made through a formal board process that includes the presentation of evidence, the participation of the aviator through counsel, and a recommendation to the convening authority.
The convening authority for an FEB varies by branch and by the aviator’s rank and assignment. In the Army, for example, the authority to convene an FEB typically rests with a senior aviation commander. The convening authority’s decision to initiate the FEB process is itself subject to procedural requirements, including a preliminary review of whether sufficient grounds exist to convene the board. Understanding who has the authority to convene an FEB in a specific case, and what that authority requires before the board is initiated, is the first step in assessing the procedural posture of the proceeding.
The Standard of Proof Applied at an FEB
An FEB applies a preponderance of the evidence standard, meaning the board determines whether it is more likely than not that the grounds for disqualification exist. This standard is substantially lower than the proof-beyond-a-reasonable-doubt standard required for a court-martial conviction. A pilot who faced criminal charges and was acquitted can still lose their wings at a subsequent FEB if the board concludes, under the preponderance standard, that the conduct underlying the criminal charge justifies disqualification from aviation duties.
The preponderance standard means that the FEB can reach conclusions that the criminal system could not. Evidence that was legally insufficient to prove guilt at trial, combined with other non-criminal concerns about the pilot’s judgment or reliability, can be sufficient to support a finding that the pilot should not retain aviation qualifications. Defense counsel at an FEB must present evidence and arguments calibrated to this specific standard rather than importing trial defense strategies that were designed for a different evidentiary framework.
How FEBs Operate Independently of Criminal Proceedings
The regulatory framework governing FEBs establishes that the board’s proceedings are independent administrative actions that do not depend on criminal charges, criminal proceedings, or criminal outcomes. The FEB can be convened before, during, or after a criminal proceeding, and the board is not bound by the outcome of any criminal case. An acquittal at court-martial is relevant evidence that the board may consider, but it does not end the FEB inquiry or mandate a finding in the pilot’s favor.
This independence creates a dual-track situation that requires coordinated management. Evidence gathered during a criminal investigation may be used at an FEB, and statements made in criminal proceedings may be available in the administrative proceeding. The pilot who does not understand how these two tracks interact may inadvertently create problems in one while addressing the other. Experienced counsel who manage both tracks simultaneously ensure that the client’s interests are protected in both proceedings.
The Range of Outcomes Available at an FEB
An FEB can recommend that the aviator retain their aviation qualifications without restriction, retain qualifications with specific limitations or conditions, be suspended from aviation duties pending further evaluation, or be permanently disqualified from military aviation. The board’s recommendation goes to the convening authority, who makes the final decision. The convening authority may accept, modify, or reject the board’s recommendation, subject to applicable regulatory constraints.
For a pilot whose career is built around aviation, the disqualification outcome is functionally equivalent to the end of their military career in any meaningful sense. Even a suspension pending further evaluation can have cascading career effects that are difficult to reverse. Defense counsel at an FEB must present the strongest possible affirmative case for the pilot’s continued fitness for aviation duties, not merely defend against the specific grounds for convening the board.
The Process for Challenging an FEB Outcome After the Board Rules
If the FEB recommends disqualification and the convening authority approves that recommendation, the pilot may challenge the outcome through the applicable administrative appeal process. The appeal goes to a higher level authority within the aviation chain of command and must identify specific procedural errors, factual errors, or legal errors that warrant reversal of the board’s recommendation. A general disagreement with the board’s assessment of the evidence does not constitute the kind of error that typically succeeds on appeal.
Grounds that have supported successful FEB appeals include evidence that was improperly excluded from the board’s consideration, procedural violations that denied the pilot a fair hearing, and findings that were not supported by the evidence even under the preponderance standard. Defense counsel who identify these issues must preserve them through appropriate objections during the board proceedings and must present them clearly and specifically in the appeal submissions that follow an adverse board outcome.
This content is provided for educational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Military law is complex and fact-specific. If you are facing a UCMJ investigation, court-martial, administrative separation, or any other military legal matter, consult a qualified military defense attorney before taking any action.