RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
         AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF:	DOCKET NUMBER:  01-00085
		INDEX NUMBER:  115.00

	XXXXXXXXXXXX	COUNSEL:  None

	XXX-XX-XXXX	HEARING DESIRED:  No

_______________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

He be reinstated into Specialized Undergraduate Pilot Training (SUPT) and allowed to perform his training at Whiting Field in the T-34 or at a location that has T-6 aircraft.

_______________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

The correct course of action has not taken place in his case.  He is not sure why, but poses several rhetorical questions that ask why; is it because he’s black, is it because he is from an F-16 Guard unit, or is it because of a speeding ticket he received off base during his first two weeks of training.

The applicant provides a copy of an Inspector General (IG) Summary Report of Investigation that addresses allegations that he made related to his elimination from SUPT.  The applicant provides a three-page review and analysis of the report and points out those areas where he disagrees with the findings.  

He believes that his submission shows that his elimination from SUPT is a direct result of his size (6’6’’ at a weight of 250 pounds and a sitting height of 36.5’’).  The applicant states that his elimination could have been avoided if he had been sent to fly in T-34s since it is a tandem seat aircraft with a larger cockpit.

The applicant’s complete submission is at Exhibit A.

_______________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

According to information contained in the personnel data system (PDS), the applicant’s Total Federal Commissioned Service Date (TFCSD) is 31 Dec 96.  On 5 Apr 97, he was appointed as a second lieutenant, Texas Air National Guard as an F-16 pilot trainee.  On 17 Jul 97, the applicant’s wing commander requested a waiver from the 19AF/DO for the applicant due to his elimination from flight screening due to size limitations of the T-3 cockpit.  The applicant was found to meet the size standards for entry into SUPT.  The waiver was approved.  He entered Joint Specialized Undergraduate Pilot Training (JSUPT) on 26 Aug 97, Class 98-14.  

During his Flying Class II physical on 28 Aug 97, the applicant was found to be over his maximum allowable weight.  He was, however, found to be below his maximum allowable body fat percentage.  During his initial JSUPT training, the applicant was again weighed and measured and found to be both overweight and overfat.  His training was suspended while he underwent processing for entry into the Weight Management program.  Upon examination by medical personnel, it was determined that with diet counseling and exercise, the applicant could easily meet the Air Force requirement for body fat and that it should, in no way, interfere with his pilot training or mission safety.  Based on the recommendation of medical personnel, the commander of the applicant’s flying training squadron authorized a temporary (not to exceed six months) medical deferral for Phase I of the Weight Management Program and the applicant was reentered into training, Class 98-15, on 13 Nov 97.  During this timeframe, 2 Sep 97, the applicant also received a letter of counseling for driving his personal vehicle on Texas highways at an extremely high rate of speed.

On 8 Dec 97, the applicant was notified by his flying training squadron commander that he was being entered into the commander’s review to evaluate all circumstances relating to his training and to make recommendations regarding his retention or elimination from training.  The applicant was notified on the AETC form 126A, Record of Commander’s Review Action, that he was being considered for elimination from training for flying deficiency.  Specifically, the applicant was unable to maintain the level of proficiency in ground ops, basic aircraft control, straight-in approach (normal), and in-flight checks.  On 9 Dec 97, the applicant provided comments on his Commander’s Review status to the flying training squadron commander for consideration before a final decision was made on his case.  On 26 Dec 97, the Operations Group commander determined that the applicant’s deficiency was sufficient for elimination.  He recommended that the applicant not be considered for reinstatement in flying training at a later date, that he be considered for non-rated operations training and, that he not be considered for specialized undergraduate navigator training.  On 5 Jan 98, the applicant was permanently disenrolled from SUPT.

_______________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

The National Guard Bureau Chief, Personnel Policy, evaluated this application and recommends denial of the applicant’s request.

The applicant’s elimination from training was due to flying deficiencies unrelated to his assertion that his physical size affected his performance.  He failed to progress even though he was given several opportunities to re-test in both ground and flight phases of training.

The applicant’s request to be reinstated into the program and assigned to Whiting Field is inconsistent with past or present scheduling of Air National Guard (ANG) pilot candidates.  ANG pilots are not assigned to Whiting Field.  In accordance with AFI 36-2205, Applying for Flying and Astronaut Training Program, officers eliminated from a flying program are ineligible to attend Undergraduate Flying Training (UFT) unless specifically recommended by the eliminating or approving authority.

The complete evaluation is at Exhibit C.

_______________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

A copy of the evaluation was forwarded to the applicant on    23 Mar 01 for review and comment within 30 days.  To date a reply has not been received.

_______________________________________________________________

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 probable error or injustice.  We took notice of the applicant's complete submission in judging the merits of the case; however, we agree with the opinion and recommendation of the Air Force office of primary responsibility and adopt their 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 compelling basis to recommend granting the relief sought in this application.

_______________________________________________________________

THE BOARD DETERMINES THAT:

The applicant be notified that the evidence presented did not demonstrate the existence of probable material error or injustice; that the application was denied without a personal appearance; and that 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 this application in Executive Session on 7 June 2001, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603:

	Vice Chair
	Member
	Member

The following documentary evidence was considered:

    Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 28 Dec 00, w/atchs.
    Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
    Exhibit C.  Memorandum, SNG/DPFP, dated 16 Feb 01.
    Exhibit D.  Letter, SAF/MIBR, dated 23 Mar 01.

                                   
                                   Vice Chair