RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF:				DOCKET NUMBER:  02-01874
INDEX CODE:  115.02
	XXXXXXXXXXXXXXX				COUNSEL: YES

	XXXXXXXXXX					HEARING DESIRED:  YES

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: 

He be reinstated in pilot training.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

The Air Force failed to provide him training in Introductory Flight Training (IFT) because he was an Air National Guardsman.  His inability to complete Specialized Undergraduate Pilot Training (SUPT) was directly attributed to the fact that he did not attend IFT.

In support of his application, he provides a statement from his counsel in his behalf and a training review letter signed by the applicant’s Flying Training Squadron Commander.  The applicant’s complete submission with attachments is at Exhibit A.

_________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

On 2 August 1993, the applicant enlisted in the Air National Guard (ANG) at the age of 22 in the grade of airman basic (E-1) for a period of six years.  He was progressively promoted to the rank of Senior Airman (E-4).  The applicant attended the Academy of Military Science (AMS) for officer training in 1998.  Having successfully completed training, he was honorably discharged from enlisted status on 18 November 1998.  On 19 November 1998, the applicant was appointed a second lieutenant in the Air National Guard and as a Reserve of the Air Force.

The applicant was accepted for Specialized Undergraduate Pilot Training (SUPT) and entered training on 5 February 1999.  Due to problems he encountered in the contact phase of training, the applicant was eliminated from SUPT on 3 June 1999.  The applicant then entered Undergraduate Navigator Training on 25 June 2000 and successfully completed the course on 13 April 2001.  He was awarded the aeronautical rating of navigator effective 13 April 2001. 

_________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

ANG/DPFP reviewed the applicant’s case file and recommends disapproval.  The current Air Force IFT program was started in October 1998; however, the Air National Guard (ANG) spent an additional six months developing procedures before sending ANG candidates in May 1999.  DPFP claims that the applicant had the necessary qualifications to attend SUPT and that his elimination from SUPT was based on his inability to meet required standards and his failure to progress in situational awareness and other flying-related skills.  DPFP claims that the additional training the applicant would have received in IFT would not have made a significant enough improvement in his abilities or contributed to his completion of SUPT.  Although the applicant was eliminated from SUPT, the Air Force and the --- ANG supported him in his efforts to complete navigator training.  The DPFP evaluation is at Exhibit C.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

The applicant believes that the lack of attending IFT put him at a clear disadvantage, and played a major role in his elimination from SUPT.  He claims that he had not flown for 2½ years prior to attending SUPT and that IFT would have entitled him to 40 hours of flying time.  The applicant’s rebuttal 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 probable error or injustice.  After reviewing the evidence of record, we are not persuaded that the applicant has been the victim of an error or injustice.  At the time of the applicant’s enrollment in SUPT, the ANG had not implemented the IFT program for Air National Guardsmen; however, the ANG determined the applicant possessed the necessary qualifications to enter SUPT training anyway.  Even though the applicant was eliminated from SUPT, the ANG supported him to become a Navigator.  The applicant asserts that he was eliminated from SUPT because he was not given the opportunity to attend IFT.  We disagree.  The evidence shows that IFT is not considered training, as such, but is used as a screening tool.  The applicant has provided no persuasive evidence that would lead us to believe that he did not possess the proper qualifications when the ANG enrolled him in SUPT or that he was unfairly treated when compared to other similarly situated ANG officers who entered SUPT prior to the time the IFT program was implemented.  Accordingly, 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.

4.  The applicant's case is adequately documented and it has not been shown that a personal appearance with or without counsel will materially add to our understanding of the issues involved.  Therefore, the request for a hearing is not favorably considered.

_________________________________________________________________

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 this application in Executive Session on 5 February 2003, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603:

The following documentary evidence was considered in connection with AFBCMR Docket No. 02-01874:

	Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 6 Jun 02, with attachments.
	Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
	Exhibit C.  Letter, ANG/DPFP, dated 20 Nov 02.
	Exhibit E.  Applicant’s Rebuttal, undated.

									Panel Chair