RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF:		DOCKET NUMBER:  01-01079
			INDEX CODE:  115.02
			COUNSEL:  NONE

			HEARING DESIRED:  NO

________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

All documents pertaining to the events at the Joint Specialized Undergraduate Pilot Training (JSUPT) at Pensacola Naval Air Station be removed from his records and that he be reinstated into the Specialized Undergraduate Pilot Training (SUPT) with the Air Force.

________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

He was removed from JSUPT on 18 November 1999 due to a lack of proper training and the failure of the Naval Aviation Schools Command’s (NAVALSCOLSCOM) to follow prescribed guidelines as set forth by Chief of Naval Air Training Instructions (CNATRAINST).

In support of his application, he submits a personal statement, several letters of recommendation, copies of Naval Training Instruction 1500.4f CH-1 and AETC Instruction 36-2205 and other documents related to his flight training.  The applicant’s complete submission, with attachments, is at Exhibit A.

________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

The applicant was appointed a second lieutenant, Reserve of the Air Force on 17 June 1997 and was voluntarily ordered to extended active duty on 24 July 1997.  He has been progressively promoted to the grade of captain, effective and with a date of rank of 17 June 2001.  Information extracted from the Personnel Data System (PDS) reveals that the applicant was assigned to duties as a student in flying training, effective 30 September 1999 and removed from flying training on 18 November 1999.  He was assigned to duties as Chief, Squadron Intelligence, effective 2 April 2001.

The remaining relevant facts pertaining to this application, extracted from the applicant’s military records, are contained in the letters prepared by the appropriate offices of the Air Force at Exhibits C and D.

________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

Inasmuch as the applicant’s training was conducted under United Sates Navy (USN) policy and guidance, HQ AETC/DOF requested the Chief of Naval Air Training (CNATRA) staff to provide comments on the applicant’s allegations.  CNATRA’s comments indicated that the applicant was not removed from training because of a lack of proper training nor because of a failure on the part of NAVAVSCOLSCOM to follow proper procedures.  He was attrited from training because of his inability to successfully complete the requirements of the Air Navigation phase of training.  After a review by competent authority under CNATRA procedure (Progress Review Board-PRB), the applicant should have been attrited after his third failure, however, he was given a fourth opportunity to pass the Air Navigation Exam.  He was subsequently eliminated after four successive academic test failures for the same course, Air Navigation (77%,78%,78%,79%).  The minimum passing score for CNATRA exam is 80%. After each failed retake, the applicant indicated to the negative, in writing, when asked “Have you any complaint or criticism to make concerning your treatment or training, and/or do you have any extenuating personal problems that should be brought to the attention of the board?”

CNATRA’s further indicated that the applicant received training above and beyond the syllabus requirements.  He had eight additional days to study, including two additional academic days, access to a learning center available seven days a week, and met with his instructor for remediation following each failure.  In summary, there is not sufficient evidence of error to invalidate the applicant’s elimination from flight training.  He was given ample opportunity to correct his deficiencies and was unable to do so.

As to the applicant's assertion his opportunity to succeed would have been increased had he attended USAF (AETC) SUPT, AETC/DOF states that the steps taken by the Navy during the applicant’s academic problems closely parallels those actions the USAF would have undertaken to include: remediation, dedicated study time and preparation time prior to reexamination, counseling, and continuous review of student performance.  USAF has similar academic failure procedures to the USN to include Commander’s Review (CR) for elimination after a third cumulative academic failure.  The standard minimum passing score for USAF SUPT academic exams is 85%.  A fourth successive academic failure of the same course is indicative of poor potential to complete SUPT.

DOF is of the opinion the applicant was given ample opportunity to complete pilot training.  He did not meet performance standards and there is no evidence of error.  Therefore, based on the evidence and the review conducted by the CNATRA staff, DOF recommends the applicant should not be considered for reinstatement into SUPT.  The AETC/DOF evaluation, with attachments, is at Exhibit C.

After a thorough review of the applicant’s case and supporting documents, HQ AFPC/DPAO, agrees with the advisory opinion provided by HQ AETC/DOF that states "...recommend the applicant should not be considered for reinstatement into SUPT" (Exhibit D).

________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

Applicant responded and states that the PRB ruled after his second failure to reenter into the subsequent class.  The documentation produced by the PRB reflects, "to retain conditionally" resulting in his entry into the subsequent class and providing him only 2 days of instruction prior to testing.  In accordance with CNATRAINST 1500.4F, a second unsatisfactory event requires "...remediation, schedule and conduct extra instruction."  Applicant feels that his third failure occurred because he only received 2 days of additional classroom instruction.  If he had attended the complete 5 days of instruction with the subsequent class, the third failure would not have occurred.  

Applicant reiterates that he may have been treated differently if he was in an Air Force program.  Within the AETC Commander’s Awareness Program (CAP) the intent is remediation and proper supervision for comprehensive preparation time prior to reexamination.  With only one night to prepare for his exams, there was not sufficient time to complete remediation with instructors and ample test preparation.  His complete submission is at Exhibit F.

________________________________________________________________

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 are not persuaded by the evidence submitted that appropriate standards or procedures were not applied, or that he was denied any of the rights and privileges he was entitled to.  Therefore, we agree with the opinions 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.  In the absence of persuasive 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 Docket Number 01-01079 in Executive Session on 13 Mar 02, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603:

The following documentary evidence was considered:

    Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 27 Mar 00, w/atchs.
    Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
    Exhibit C.  Letter, AETC/DOF, dated 26 Sep 01, w/atchs.
    Exhibit D.  Letter, AFPC/DPAO, dated 29 Oct 01.
    Exhibit E.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 2 Nov 01.
    Exhibit F.  Letter, Applicant, dated 14 Feb 02.

								
								Vice Chair