RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
         AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF:	DOCKET NUMBER:  BC-2002-01823
		INDEX CODE:  125.00

		COUNSEL:  NONE

		HEARING DESIRED: NO

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

His AETC Form 126A be corrected to allow his reinstatement into Specialized Undergraduate Pilot Training (SUPT).

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

While in SUPT he was exposed to eight different instructors when the Operating Instruction (OI) called for a maximum of three; that many external factors existed that, coupled with the normal challenges and difficulties of SUPT, imposed a higher stress level on him than experienced by most SUPT students; his elimination check ride contained biased subjectivity. 

His complete submission, along with attachments, is at Exhibit A.

_________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

The applicant, while a member of the ---- Air National Guard (-- ANG), was selected for SUPT and began training on 21 March 2000.  During T-37 primary training, he failed four Contact Category aircraft training sorties and one Instrument Category simulator training sortie.  He failed the Instrument Category check ride on his first attempt and was subsequently ranked 24th in his class of 31 students.  After discussions with his home unit commander, the student flight commander recommended the applicant continue training and he was entered into the T-38 advance track.  

While in T-38 advanced track training, the applicant graded below standard on 11 aircraft sorties and 5 simulator events.  He successfully passed rechecks on the Contact and Formation Check’s.  However, he failed the second retake on the Instrument/Navigation Check.  As a result, he was entered into the Commander’s Review process where he was eventually eliminated from training by the final approval authority (Wing Commander).  

_________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

HQ ANG/DPFP recommends denial of relief.  DPFP notes the tremendous amount of documented correspondence surrounding this case from subject matter experts, those familiar with applicant’s performance and from the Advisor to the Commander for 19th Air Force, who presented that the applicant lacked the ability to develop the skill sets necessary for the flying profession.

DPFP states that while the applicant did not complete SUPT, as an ANG officer, he can be reclassified and trained into another Air Force Specialty Code (AFSC).  

DPFP’s evaluation, along with attached correspondence from the -- ANG Chief of Staff and an e-mail trail between DPFP and the ANG Advisor to the Commander for 19th Air Force, is at Exhibit B.

HQ AETC/DOF recommends the applicant not be reinstated into SUPT.  DOF’s complete evaluation, with attachments, is at Exhibit C.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

Applicant notes that the National Guard Bureau (NGB) has recommended against his retention as a flying asset, largely on the recommendation from the ANG Advisor to the Commander of 19th Air Force, and argues that at the time, the advisor, was not given access to letters or other supporting materials now in applicant’s possession that may have swayed the advisor’s opinion.  Applicant notes also that the -- ANG recommended against his retention in the ANG as a flying asset.  His contention is that the Commander mistakenly noted that the majority of applicant’s letters of support were from his peers: fellow trainees in SUPT.  The applicant contends that of the 18 letters he submitted, 10 were from instructor pilots, 2 from current fighter pilots, 2 from current instructor pilots of the T-37 and F-15, and finally 1 from the F-15 commander of the ---nd Fighter Wing in the --- ANG.

The applicant notes that of the 23 instructors he flew with, 3 instructors account for one half of his substandard rides and contends that that fact alone accounts for a more critical grading practice.  While he asked to fly with different instructors, no change in continuity was ever made.  

The applicant’s letter, which includes rebuttal statements to the HQ AETC/DO’s evaluation, is at Exhibit E.

_________________________________________________________________

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 error or injustice.  We took notice of the evidence of record and the applicant's complete submission in judging the merits of the case and felt that the applicant did not submit sufficient evidence to overcome the presumption of regularity concerning the initial recommendation of his Operations Group Commander (Reviewing Authority) that he “not be considered for reinstatement in the course at a later date.”  Consequently, 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.  

While we sympathize with the applicant’s disappointment and concern for the gravity of his decision regarding his future as an Air Force pilot, the Board notes the applicant’s zeal to return to flight training and the Operations Group Commander’s recommendation that he be considered for technical training and non-rated operations training.  We are in agreement with this recommendation and encourage the applicant to pursue these avenues.  

_________________________________________________________________

THE BOARD DETERMINES THAT:

The applicant be notified that the evidence presented did not demonstrate the existence of 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 AFBCMR Docket Number BC-2002-01823 in Executive Session on 20 May 2003, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603:

The following documentary evidence was considered:

    Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 20 May 02, w/atchs. 
    Exhibit B.  Letter, HQ ANG/DPFP, dated 6 Dec 02, w/atchs.
    Exhibit C.  Letter, HQ AETC/DOF, dated 17 Mar 03, w/atchs.
    Exhibit D.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 28 Mar 03.
    Exhibit E.  Letter, Applicant, dated 5 Apr 03, w/atch.

                                   Panel Chair